Whilst demo courtroom heard testimony and we also must ergo opinion the judgment according to the ore tenus simple, see McPherson Oils Co. v. Massey, 643 Thus.2d 595, 596 (Ala.1994), the new ore tenus basic doesn’t protect a shot court’s factual results where record does not have legitimate, big proof to support men and women conclusions. Younger v. Weaver, 883 Very.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.Application.2003) (Because the trial legal grabbed evidence ore tenus, its view is given an assumption off correctness that can maybe not feel stopped unless its shown to be unsupported from the good-sized proof and plainly and palpably incorrect.). Matthews’s testimony is actually merely you to definitely, inside her viewpoint, which had been told, she said, by documentation one she didn’t present in the demo, she failed to are obligated to pay any money to Eco-friendly Forest. She given zero evidence of how much money one she had paid over the life of the mortgage bargain, and you can she didn’t shed question towards the testimony out of Kelley, just who, according to shows admitted towards the research documenting Matthews’s fee records, testified you to Matthews hadn’t paid down extent she due significantly less than the borrowed funds bargain. Lowrey, 101 Very.three-dimensional 210, 218 (Ala.2012), this isn’t permitted to ensure it is good conclusory statement with out evidentiary support to help you exceed the other recommendation proof within demonstration, and this, in today’s instance, are backed by thorough records.
