Can you appeal a decision if the judge based it on subjective and unclear testimony?

Question

Suppose in a non-jury civil lawsuit, the Plaintiff calls the Defendant to the stand, and proceeds to question him. During the testimony, the judge interrupts to ask the Defendant witness a question.

For example, suppose the judge asks the Defendant "so you understood from the Plaintiff that he meant he would not be transferring the money to you?". To which the Defendant replies "Yes", and questioning from the attorneys resume as normal.

In the judge's ruling, the judge cites the excerpt of testimony from the judge's question during the trial. However the Defendant witness, in his answer to the judge, clearly did not mean an absolute "Yes", but only "Yes" for that particular moment in time that was being discussed. The judge misunderstood him and the entire case turned on that "Yes".

Is this subject to an appeal or is it the fault of Defendant's counsel that they did not pose the questions necessary to clarify things for the judge.

Answer 1

On appeal, a judge's decision will be upheld if the findings of fact made by the judge have any support from admissible evidence presented at trial, or if a reasonable inference from that admitted evidence supports the judge's conclusion.

The judge's decision can also be upheld if there was a reason based upon admissible evidence presented at trial for the ruling made by the judge to be the correct outcome, even if the judge reached that decision for legally wrong reasons or reasons that weren't supported by admissible evidence presented at trial.

A judge's decision can be appealed and overruled, however, where no reasonable person could make the factual findings and conclusions of law reached by the judge based upon the admissible evidence presented at trial.

Appellate courts strongly defer to a trial judge's interpretation of what a witness really meant to say when that witness testified. It is critical to clarify any testimony during trial, because if the judge misunderstands it, it is extremely difficult to clarify the testimony after the fact once you see the ruling.

Appellate courts in common law legal systems can only address whether a ruling is correct based upon the evidence presented at trial. In contrast, in civil law systems, like the legal systems of France, Germany, and Spain, if a judge misunderstands the evidence or new evidence that clarifies a factual finding or puts it in a new light doesn't get in during a first trial, these factual issues can be clarified in a first appeal.