Cited by

¶ 8 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2000)).

(“We will not set aside the [trial] court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” (alteration in Castro) ()).

Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., ¶ 11 (App. 2000).

¶ 7 (App. 2017) ( ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (citation omitted)).

¶ 11 (App. 2000) (explaining we give meaning to each part of a statute and avoid rendering any of it “surplusage”).

court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” ¶ 5 (App. 2000); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

However, “where there is a dispute in the evidence from which reasonable [persons] could arrive at different conclusions as to the ultimate facts, we will not disturb the findings of a trial court.” In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (citations omitted); ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (noting that the appellate court gives “due regard to the opportunity of the [superior] court to judge the credibility of witnesses”).

(noting courts interpret statutes to avoid rendering language “surplusage, .

Sys., ¶ 7 (App. 2017) ( ¶ 11 (App. 2000)).

We accept the court’s findings of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” ¶ 5 (App. 2000).

Co., n.9, n.9 (1993); ¶ 11

so that no part of the statute will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’” ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (citation omitted).

¶ 5 (App. 2000) (findings of fact will not be set aside “unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses”).

But because they are part of a cohesive overall scheme, we must interpret each statute to avoid rendering “any of its language mere surplusage, and instead give meaning to each word, phrase, clause, and sentence so that no part of the statute will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (internal quotations, citations, and modifications omitted).

In the course of our de novo review, however, we defer to the court’s underlying factual findings, ¶ 7 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 9 (2000)), unless they are clearly erroneous, ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (citing Ariz. R. Civ.

(when interpreting a statute, “we presume that the legislature did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”).