Absent a principled reason to do so, we will not second-guess the implicit credibility determinations inherent in that finding. Tsukamaki and Tsukamaki, 199 Or App 577, 581, 112 P3d 416 (2005); Tomos and Tomos, 165 Or App 82, 87, 995 P2d 576 (2000); Kempkes and Kempke, 151 Or App 434, 440, 949 P2d 1239 (1997). Accordingly, on de novo review, we also accept husband's valuations.
The trial court implicitly found wife and her witnesses credible; although husband testified in contradiction to much of wife's testimony, we do not disturb the trial court's findings of fact and determination of credibility without reason to do so. Kempke and Kempke, 151 Or App 434, 440, 949 P2d 1239 (1997). The parties were married in 1975 and divorced by stipulated judgment in 1995.
The trial court found petitioner's testimony credible and we defer to that determination. See Kempke and Kempke, 151 Or App 434, 440, 949 P2d 1239 (1997) (deferring to the trial court's assessment of credibility in the absence of reason to do otherwise). The court dismissed petitioner's FAPA restraining order.
On de novo review, and giving deference to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the parties, we see no reason to modify its ruling. See Kempke and Kempke, 151 Or. App. 434, 949 P.2d 1239 (1997). Affirmed.
We defer to the trial court's assessment of his credibility in the absence of a reason to do otherwise. Kempke and Kempke, 151 Or. App. 434, 440, 949 P.2d 1239 (1997); Obrist v. Harmon, 150 Or. App. 173, 177, 945 P.2d 1089 (1997);. Petitioner sought and obtained an ex parte FAPA restraining order.
It appears that the court made an implicit credibility determination that wife's withdrawals were for legitimate purposes related to household expenses and that husband's "equalizing" withdrawal was not. Although our review is de novo, because the trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, we defer to the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility on this issue. See Kempke and Kempke, 151 Or. App. 434, 440, 949 P.2d 1239 (1997) ("We substitute our judgment for the trial court's judgment only if we have principled reasons to do so."). We affirm the equalizing judgment of $19,500 to wife.