was titled in Mrs. Sasso’s name. Therefore, the Court concludes that Mrs. Sasso’s testimony is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the Certificates of Deposit were community property. The Court does not reach this conclusion lightly. It is possible that Mrs. Sasso purchased the Certificates of Deposit with her separate funds. However, the Debtor and Mrs. Sasso had a full and fair opportunity to appear in person at trial and present evidence corroborating Mrs. Sasso’s testimony. They simply did not take advantage of that opportunity. If the Debtor or Mrs. Sasso could have produced corroborating evidence and chose not to, then they only have themselves to blame for the outco Cir. 2004) ("The self-serving quality of the testimony goes to its credibility, w , 74 (5th Cir. 1944) (<HOLDING>), 23 . See Strong v. Eakin, 11 N.M. 107, 108,
holding that the standard of care applicable to a reasonable pharmaceutical company marketing product after minimum testing and without a warning does not entail specialized knowledge or skill unique to a scientific discipline and beyond the knowledge and experience of the average jury holding experts experience knowledge and training is considered in determining reliability recognizing common knowledge exception recognizing a common knowledge exception holding that the judge and jury may rely upon common knowledge and experience without proof