at law, findings of the trial court are to be broadly and liberally construed, rather than narrowly or technically, and in case of ambiguity, they will be construed to uphold, rather than defeat, the judgment.”). Appellate courts in other jurisdictions have affirmed attorney-fee awards based upon implied findings of bad faith. See, e.g., Harlan v. Lewis, 982 F.2d 1255, 1260 (8th Cir.1993) (“Moreover, even if we assume that a finding of bad faith is required, we conclude that the district court’s order implies a finding of bad faith.”); Baker Indus., Inc. v. Cerberus Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 209 (3d Cir.1985) (declining to remand “for an explicit finding of bad faith when it is clearly evident from the district court’s expressions and from the record as a whole, that the dis 72, 76 (1951) (<HOLDING>), In re Marriage of Voyek, 491 N.W.2d 189,
holding good faith required for adverse possession means the actual existing state of mind and freedom from a design to defraud holding that actual intent to defraud is not necessary to finding of constructive fraud holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that the statute requires actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors or the trustee constructive intent to defraud does not suffice