work by Mr. Wittekamp, who would apparently be a damage witness. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been involved in reviewing prior proceedings, gaining information regarding the preliminary work of Mr. Wittekamp and providing direction to him. This has been the type of preparation that would be anticipated in the early stages of litigation in which defendants have filed pleadings raising their defenses together with a motion for judgment based on these defenses. It is plaintiffs’ position that most of the preparation for the case occurred in the prior litigation. Lower Court Opinion 8/30/1995 pp. 11-12. The essence of appellants’ argument is that these findings of fact are not supported by the record and are clearly erroneous. See In re Park Drive Manor, 380 Pa. 134, 110 A.2d 392 (1955) (<HOLDING>). We find that the lower court’s findings of
holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal holding that family courts conclusions will not be set aside if supported by findings holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous