The distinction between “clear error” and “correctness” is central to appellate review and determines how much deference an appellate court gives to the trial court. When an issue is reviewed for correctness, the appellate court gives no deference to the trial court’s decision and instead considers the issue anew, substituting its own judgment. This standard applies to questions of law, such as statutory interpretation or constitutional issues, and provides the appellant with a fresh opportunity to persuade the court. In contrast, the clear error standard is highly deferential and applies to findings of fact. Under this standard, the appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the court with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. As a result, factual determinations—particularly those involving credibility or the weighing of evidence—are rarely overturned. In practice, many cases, especially in family law, involve a combination of standards: legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, factual findings for clear error, and ultimate decisions such as custody or alimony for abuse of discretion. Strategically, framing an issue as a legal question invites correctness review and a more favorable standard for reversal, whereas challenges to factual findings face the significant hurdle of clear error review.