The Correctness of Trial Court Judgments under the Ore Tenus Rule


In a recent case (Burdette v. Auburn-Opelika Investments, LLC), the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a judgment from the Lee Circuit Court. The judgment was reached following an ore tenus trial, where it was determined that a limited liability company had fulfilled its obligation to the plaintiff under a note by providing a sum of money in exchange for the plaintiff’s shares in the LLC. This article explores the court’s decision and the application of the ore tenus standard of review.

The Ore Tenus Standard of Review

The ore tenus standard of review is a well-settled principle in Alabama law. It establishes that when a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, the resulting judgment based on those findings of fact will be presumed correct. Appellate courts will not overturn the judgment unless there is a clear and palpable error. This standard is rooted in the belief that the trial court, having witnessed the oral testimony, is best positioned to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.

Evaluating Disputed Issues of Fact

The ore tenus rule applies to disputed issues of fact, regardless of whether the dispute is solely based on oral testimony or a combination of oral testimony and documentary evidence. When the evidence is presented ore tenus, the trial court’s conclusion on issues of fact is granted a presumption of correctness. Appellate courts will uphold the trial court’s judgment if it is supported by credible evidence and not clearly erroneous or against the weight of the evidence.

See also  Exploring Careers at Garrity Traina: Opportunities and Benefits

Applying the Law to the Facts

However, this presumption of correctness does not apply when the trial court is shown to have misapplied the law to the facts of the case. In such instances, the appellate court may intervene. The review will then focus on whether the trial court’s decision was in accordance with the law and properly considered the facts presented.

Considering Extrinsic Evidence

In the case at hand, the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed conflicting evidence regarding the intentions of the parties involved. The court concluded that the trial court correctly considered extrinsic evidence due to a latent ambiguity in the agreement for the purchase of shares. A latent ambiguity occurs when a writing appears clear on its face but becomes uncertain when considered alongside collateral matters. Extrinsic evidence can be taken into account to resolve such ambiguities and ascertain the true intentions of the parties to the contract.

The Role of the Trial Court Judge

Given the conflicting extrinsic evidence, the trial court judge acted as the fact-finder and had the authority to resolve any conflicts in the testimony and assess the credibility of the witnesses. This discretion allows the trial court judge to determine the weight to be given to each piece of evidence and make informed judgments regarding the disputed issues of fact.

Denial of Relief under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act

The Alabama Supreme Court also addressed a cross-appeal by the limited liability company, which claimed that the trial court had erred in denying its request for relief under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act. The court held that the trial court’s judgment was correct, as the LLC had failed to demonstrate that the action was commenced without substantial justification. The conflicting evidence presented during the trial supported the trial court’s conclusion.

See also  Understanding Civil Litigation Law


The ore tenus rule and the application of the standard of review play a crucial role in upholding the correctness of trial court judgments. It allows the trial court to evaluate witness credibility and resolve disputed issues of fact. In the case discussed, the trial court correctly considered extrinsic evidence to resolve a latent ambiguity. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the importance of the trial court judge’s discretion and the need for substantial justification in legal actions.