Here, Tedford testified that (1) she never received an original lease agreement, (2) she
received multiple NSF checks, and (3) she did not receive the security deposit when she expected
it. The commissioner found Tedford’s testimony credible as to why she initiated the lawful
detainer action to terminate the tenancy.4 These findings, adopted by the superior court on review,
are verities. Pham, 187 Wn. App. at 825. “Reviewing courts will not reweigh the evidence or the
credibility of witnesses on appeal.” State v. Living Essentials, LLC, 8 Wn. App. 2d 1, 15, 436 P.3d
857 (2019), review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1040. Thus, the commissioner correctly concluded that
Guy and Mattler could not meet their burden to show that the unlawful detainer action was
retaliatory, and it properly issued a writ of restitution.
4
Notably, Guy and Mattler also fail to argue that the conclusion, that Tedford’s actions were not
retaliatory, is not supported by the findings.
12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52222-5-II
Because Guy and Mattler cannot overcome the presumption that Tedford did not retaliate,
and the commissioner properly concluded that Tedford’s actions were not retaliatory as a matter
of law, we hold that the superior court did not err by denying their motion to revise and by adopting
the commissioner’s decision.
B. STRIKING THE TRIAL
Guy and Mattler next argue that the commissioner erred by striking the trial date after
granting Tedford’s motion for a writ of restitution because they are entitled to a trial on their
retaliation defense, and if they prevail, they would be entitled to an award of attorney fees and
costs under RCW 59.18.250.5 We hold that because the commissioner did not err by striking the