Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf

No. 52222-5-II

an adoption of the commissioner’s decision, and the court is not required to enter separate findings

and conclusions.” Maldonado v. Maldonado, 197 Wn. App. 779, 789, 391 P.3d 546 (2017).

“On appeal, this court reviews the superior court’s ruling, not the commissioner’s.”

Maldonado, 197 Wn. App. at 789. Thus, here we review the superior court’s order adopting the

commissioner’s rulings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. We review a trial court’s findings

of fact in an unlawful detainer action for substantial evidence. Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wn. App.

816, 825, 351 P.3d 214 (2015). Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal. Pham, 187

Wn. App. at 825. We review conclusions of law de novo. Pham, 187 Wn. App. at 825. Here,

only conclusion of law 10 is at issue.

II. SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL

Guy and Mattler claim that the superior court erred by adopting the commissioner’s

decision because the commissioner did not conduct a proper show cause proceeding when it

limited Guy’s proffered testimony to relevant evidence. We hold that because the commissioner

conducted a proper show cause proceeding, including limiting the evidence to relevant evidence,

the superior court did not err.

A court has wide discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant under ER 401.

Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384, 128 S. Ct. 1140, 170 L. Ed. 2d 1

(2008). “Relevant evidence” is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact

that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it

would be without the evidence.” ER 401.

“‘A trial court’s refusal to allow testimony is reviewed for [an] abuse of discretion.’” Leda,