What constitutes substantial evidence supporting the assigned judge's finding that the easement was not abandoned?

"When there is substantial evidence, although conflicting, that sustains the judgment an appellate court will not substitute its evaluation of the evidence or its opinion as to the credibility of the witnesses for that of the trial court." (Romero v. Eustace (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 253, 254.) Although "[t]he rule that the amount of credit to be given to the positive testimony of a witness is solely a question for the trial court is not applicable in a case in which the testimony, in the light of the undisputed facts, is so inherently improbable and impossible of belief as in effect to constitute no evidence at all," "[i]n order that the court may be justified in disregarding evidence as being inherently improbable and unbelievable there must exist a physical impossibility of its being true or its falsity must be apparent without resort to inferences or deductions." (Ibid.)

The Pavans have not shown that it was physically impossible for Gonsalves and Pollock to have used the easement as they testified they did, nor have the Pavans shown that their testimony was demonstrably false without resort to inferences or deductions. "Since from the record we cannot say the evidence is improbable or impossible of belief, we must follow the rule so frequently announced that we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent[s] and resolve all conflicts in [their] favor." (Romero v. Eustace, supra, 101 Cal.App.2d at p. 254.) Accordingly, contrary to the Pavans' argument, the testimony of Gonsalves and Pollock does constitute substantial evidence supporting the assigned judge's finding that the easement was used and was not abandoned.

Page 20