In Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, the California Supreme Court explained in detail the standards we apply in reviewing a judgment "based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial . . . ." We review questions of law de novo, and apply the substantial evidence rule to the trial court's findings of fact. (Ibid.) "Under this deferential standard of review, findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the findings." (Ibid.) "A single witness's testimony may constitute substantial evidence to support a finding. It is not our role as a reviewing court to reweigh the evidence or to assess witness credibility. 'A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.' " (Ibid.) The Court said: "In reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial, we review questions of law de novo. Citation. We apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court's findings of fact. Citation. Under this deferential standard of review, findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the findings. A single witness's testimony may constitute substantial evidence to support a finding. It is not our role as a reviewing court to reweigh the evidence or to assess witness credibility. 'A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness'. Specifically, 'under the doctrine of implied findings, the reviewing court must infer, following a bench trial, that the trial court impliedly made every factual finding necessary to support its decision."