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

150 Wn. App. 69, 79 n.2 (quoting Goodell v. ITT-Federal Support Serv., Inc., 89 Wn.2d 488, 493,

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 52222-5-II

573 P.2d 1292 (1978)). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its order is manifestly

unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.’” Leda, 150 Wn. App. at 79 n.2 (quoting Wash. State

Phys. Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). “A trial

court necessarily abuses its discretion if its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law.” Leda

150 Wn. App. at 79 n.2 (citing Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 826, 833, 161 P.3d 1016 (2007)).

A trial court’s erroneous refusal to admit evidence will only merit reversal if the error prejudiced

the party seeking the admission; that is, “within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of the trial

would have been materially affected had the error not occurred.” Saldivar v. Momah, 145 Wn.

App. 365, 401, 186 P.3d 1117 (2008).

Here, the commissioner ruled that Guy’s proffered testimony, relating to insufficient funds

for the rent checks, was not relevant to the issue of retaliation and that there was other substantial

evidence for the commissioner to enter her findings and conclusions. Counsel for Guy and Mattler

did not object to the commissioner’s ruling, or make an offer of proof as to what Guy would testify

to if permitted. We hold that because the commissioner did not abuse her discretion by limiting

Guy’s testimony to relevant evidence, the superior court did not err.

III. DEFENSE OF RETALIATION TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

Guy and Mattler argue that the superior court erred by denying their motion to revise