With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was denied the opportunity of securing, minimally, his $756,800.00 mortgage at the prevailing interest rate being offered at the time. Despite the fact that BMW Financial Services was the party that initiated the repossession proceedings and allegedly reported its actions to various credit agencies, the trial judge determined that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish that Rovmain was “responsible for starting the ball rolling that resulted in his [Mr. Reuschel’s] credit rating being adversely affected by BMW and Land Rover Financial Services...to the tune of...$25,330.51.” [N.T. 4/9/07, at 207] The credibility of the parties and witnesses in this case presumably weighs heavily in the fact-finder’s decision-making process. See In Re Lokuta at 255, 11 A.3d at 446 (<HOLDING>). Given the trial judge’s verdict, one might

A: holding that an appellate court will not disturb atrial courts credibility findings
B: holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact
C: recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings
D: holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review
A.