Opinion
Rehearing Denied July 1, 1975.
Agee, Fann, Ewing & Goldstein, Ron E. Ewing, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant and third-party defendant-appellant.
Al H. Haas, Durango, Elizabeth A. Conour, Del Norte, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellee.
RULAND, Judge.
This is the third appeal by plaintiff, Loyal Morgan, and third-party defendant, Bernice E. Morgan, in a dispute with defendant, Harold Freel, relative to the rights of the respective parties in certain equipment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The factual background out of which this controversy arose and the resolution of prior issues between the parties are contained in two earlier opinions of this court and are not repeated here. See Morgan v. Freel, Colo.App., 475 P.2d 641 (not selected for official publication); and Colo.App., 513 P.2d 461 (not selected for official publication). As a result of the second appeal, the cause was remanded with directions for the trial court to determine the value of the equipment as of October 3, 1963, and to offset that amount against the indebtedness of Loyal Morgan to Freel as established in the second trial.
The equipment consists generally of heavy machinery used in highway construction and land excavation projects. Pursuant to the remand, the trial court conducted a further hearing to establish the value of the equipment. While there was testimony from other witnesses concerning a few pieces of the equipment, only the testimony of Morgan and Freel was presented to show, item by item, the value of all of the equipment. Morgan's opinion as to the total value was $29,450; Freel's opinion was that the total value was $3,125. Following presentation of this evidence, the trial court entered findings of fact and determined that total value of the equipment in dispute was $9,650.
In ruling on motions for new trial by both parties, the court stated that it was very disappointed in the evidence adduced on this issue in that no demonstrative evidence in the form of photographs was presented reflecting the condition of the equipment, and no testimony from any disinterested person who qualified as an expert was presented. The trial court also remarked that determination of value in this case was a very difficult problem and that its finding could be erroneous. The trial court indicated that it was unable to accept in total the testimony of either party and that it had relied on part of Morgan's testimony and part of Freel's testimony in reaching a decision.
On this appeal, Morgan contends that the trial court's findings do not comply with C.R.C.P. 52(a) because the court did not itemize the value placed on each piece of equipment, and further, that its determination of value is contrary to the 'manifest weight of the evidence.' We disagree.
The test of the adequacy of the trial court's findings under C.R.C.P. 52(a) is whether such findings are sufficient to inform the appellate court of the basis of its decision. See Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Bond, 156 Colo. 433, 399 P.2d 793; American National Bank v. Quad Construction, Inc., 31 Colo.App. 373, 504 P.2d 1113. That basis was provided when the trial court pointed out that it accepted the testimony of Morgan as to certain of the items and the testimony of Freel as to the balance. 'The trial judge is not required to assert in detail the negative of every rejected proposition as well as the affirmative of those which he finds to be correct.' Uptime Corp. v. Colorado Research Corp., 161 Colo. 87, 420 P.2d 232; See also Lininger v. Lininger, 138 Colo. 338, 333 P.2d 625.
The credibility of witnesses, the sufficiency, probative effect and weight of all the evidence and inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom are all within the province of the trial court, and, where, as here, the record supports the trial court's findings, such may not be disturbed on review by this court. Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336; Thiele v. State, 30 Colo.App. 491, 495 P.2d 558.
We have considered Morgan's other allegations of error and find them to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and SMITH, JJ., concur.