Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 837346 orderanopinion.pdf

When reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law

following a bench trial, we determine “whether the findings of fact are supported

by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of

law.” 224 Westlake, LLC v. Engstrom Props., LLC, 169 Wn. App. 700, 705, 281

P.3d 693 (2012). The substantial evidence standard is satisfied if there is sufficient

evidence “‘to persuade a rational, fair-minded person of the truth of the finding.’”

Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 162 Wn.2d 340, 353, 172 P.3d 688 (2007)

(quoting In re Est. of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1, 8, 93 P.3d 147 (2004)). If that standard

is satisfied, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court even if we
-4-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/5

might have resolved disputed facts differently. Green v. Normandy Park Riviera

Section Cmty. Club, Inc., 137 Wn. App. 665, 689, 151 P.3d 1038 (2007), (citing

Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 879, 73 P.3d 369 (2003)).

The standard of review applicable to legal issues, including the proper

interpretation of the RLTA and SMC, is de novo. State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n, 195

Wn.2d 442, 456, 461 P.3d 334 (2020). 1

A. Deposit, nonrefundable move-in fee, and checklist

The trial court concluded that Hoskins charged a security deposit in excess

of the monthly rent and a nonrefundable fee in excess of 10 percent of the monthly

rent in violation of SMC 7.24.035(A) 2 and (B)(4), 3 respectively. The court also

concluded “that the checklist signed by Hoskins was not provided to the plaintiffs”

in violation of SMC 7.24.030(C)(1). 4 Despite these findings, the trial court did not