‘the fact finder ... ha[s] the advantage of hearing testimony of witnesses and [can] directly judge their credibility. As a reviewing court, neither the circuit court nor this Court should attempt to assume such a role.’ ” Orth v. Stoebner & Permann Constr., Inc., 2006 S.D. 99, ¶ 77, 724 N.W.2d 586, 602 (second alteration in original) (quoting Hendricksen v. Harris, 1999 S.D. 130, ¶ 7, 600 N.W.2d 180, 181). [¶ 20.] Here, the circuit court was not in a better position than the referee to determine the credibility of Mother and Father. After considering the evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the referee clearly erred in making his credibility finding. The circuit court erred in concluding o P.2d 258, 262 (Utah 1983) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Farmer v. Farmer, 147 Ga.App. 387, 249
holding that adult child who maintained his own residence separate from his fathers household but regularly vacationed and kept gear at his fathers vacation home was not a resident of his fathers household and therefore not an insured under his fathers insurance policy covering the vacation home holding that the bank was not entitled to reform the note which stated that debtor would make monthly payments less than what the parties intended even though error was mutual mistake of parties where debtor made all of the previous payments was retired and could not afford to pay any additional obligations to the bank and meet his current living expenses holding that the department was not entitled to reimbursement for support payments when the fathers housing payments during the pendency of the divorcee exceeded what was due even though it augmented the fathers own equity holding that mortgage payments should not be regarded as child support because it was a contractual legal obligation that built fathers equity holding that it was within the courts discretion to credit fathers arrearages for onehalf of the mortgage payments that he made