As trial de novo has been abolished by the Legislature and the trial court in the instant case found that there is no evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of Peter Schmidt in transferring the real property to himself and Martha as joint tenants, our standard of review is the "clearly erroneous" rule set forth in Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. This court has stated repeatedly that a finding will be determined clearly erroneous only when, although there is some evidence to support it, this court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. E.g., George v. Compson, 251 N.W.2d 743 (N.D. 1977); Mattco, Inc. v. Mandan Radio Ass'n, Inc., 246 N.W.2d 222 (N.D. 1976); In re Estate of Elmer, 210 N.W.2d 815 (N.D. 1973). It is with this test in mind that we must review the record. Hildegard, in her brief, argues the fraudulent nature of the conveyance in that Peter "defaulted continuously thereafter in the payments required to be made. . . ."