LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – When Appellate Court May Not Interfere

This succinctly restates fundamental appellate deference principle (see Principles 216, 248, 283, 313, 348, 359, 380, 402, 424, 441, 461-462, 487, 584). Trite law: So well-established that citation is unnecessary—fundamental appellate practice principle. Rule: Appellate courts “may not lightly interfere” with trial judge’s fact findings IF supported by evidence. “Not lightly” means: high threshold for interference, strong presumption favoring trial findings, and reluctance to disturb. “Supported by the evidence” means: some evidentiary basis exists, findings have foundation in record, and not made without evidence. When this condition exists: appellate courts defer, don’t reassess evidence, and respect trial judge’s findings. This serves: recognizing trial judge’s advantage (seeing/hearing witnesses, assessing demeanor), respecting trial court fact-finding role, and promoting finality. The principle doesn’t prevent ALL interference—when findings are: perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, lacking evidentiary support, or unreasonable (Principle 584)—interference is justified. But threshold is high: findings must be fundamentally flawed, not merely findings appellate court would have made differently. “Trite law…hardly needs citation” emphasizes: universally accepted, needs no authority support, and deeply embedded in appellate practice. This succinct formulation captures essential deference principle: evidence-supported findings enjoy strong presumption of correctness and should rarely be disturbed on appeal.