of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." We will not reverse a trial court's findings unless the evidence is uncontradicted and fails to support even a reasonable inference in favor of the findings. 3 W. HARVEY, INDIANA PRACTICE Rule 52(A) at 423 (1970); see also Alfaro v. Stauffer Chemical Co. (1977), 173 Ind.App. 89, 362 N.E.2d 500, trans. denied. It is an elementary rule of appellate practice that the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Association (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 276; Black v. Daggy (1859), 13 Ind. 383. We refuse to sift through the record attempting to locate trial court error so that we might state appellant's case for him. See Selz Schwab & Co. v. Gullian (1918), 187 Ind. 328, 119 48 N.E.2d 1004 (<HOLDING>). Herman's contention that the trial court's
holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that trust beneficiaries have no authority to maintain an action as third party beneficiaries of contracts between the trustee and agents of the trustee concerning the internal affairs of the trust holding that attempted conveyance of remainder interest in a trust was invalid because the spendthrift provision prohibited beneficiary from making any binding commitment of principal or income during the life of the trust holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted