Smith, In re, 711--III
| Decision Date | 30 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 711--III,711--III |
| Citation | 8 Wn.App. 285,505 P.2d 1295 |
| Parties | In re the Welfare of Kathryn E. SMITH et al., minors. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Joe R. Woolett of Sperline, Ellis & Woolett, East Wenatchee, for petitioner.
Fred L. Van Sickle, Pros. Atty., Douglas County, Waterville, for respondent.
The sole issue presented is whether a superior court, when reviewing an order of a court commissioner, is bound by the substantial evidence rule enunciated in Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wash.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959). We answer in the negative, and reverse.
On June 22, 1972 the Superior Court Commissioner of Douglas County entered an order depriving petitioners of the custody of four minor children. On August 23, 1972 the Superior Court affirmed this order.
In the course of an oral opinion the trial judge said:
Well, counsel, we may as well take it in the order that Mr. Woolett sets forth as to why the court should reverse the findings of the court commissioner, and of course, that the Findings of Fact and the Order were not supported by the evidence. As I stated previously, I have read the transcript in full. I am sure that both counsel are familiar with Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards. It is cited time and time again by the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. And, of course, that case does hold that the appellate court will not overturn a decision of the trial court if it is substantiated by substantial evidence. In other words, even if the appellate court--or in this case, myself--reading the transcript would have arrived at a different decision, it does not mean that the court can overturn the decision of the court commissioner if it is supported by substantial evidence. And I am sure it is.
We have found no case where the Thorndike rule mentioned in the court's oral opinion has been applied to a superior court's review of a court commissioner's order. Review of such orders is covered in RCW 2.24.050 as follows:
All of the acts and proceedings of court commissioners hereunder shall be subject to Revision by the superior court. Any party in interest may have such revision upon demand made by written motion, filed with the clerk of the superior court, within ten days after the entry of any order or judgment of the court commissioner. Such revision shall be upon the records of the case, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the court commissioner, and unless a demand for revision is made within ten days from the entry of the order or judgment of the court commissioner, his orders and judgments shall be and become the orders and judgments of the superior court, and from same an appeal may be taken to the supreme court or the court of appeals in all cases where an appeal will lie from like orders and judgments entered by the judge. (Amended by Laws 1971 ch. 81 § 10, effective March 23, 1971).
(Italics ours.)
The superior court's scope of review under the precedent statute, containing essentially the same language as RCW 2.24.050, was considered in State ex rel. Biddinger v. Griffiths, 137 Wash. 448, 242 P. 969 (1926). In that case a defendant filed in superior court a motion for review of the rulings and orders of a court commissioner. The superior court limited its review to whether the process was regular and according to law on its face, 'whether the findings of the commissioner supported the judgment,' and refused to review the entire case as heard by the commissioner. In granting a writ of mandamus to require the superior court to make a full review of the cause, the court said, at 450, 242 P. at 970:
It will be noted that by this section, (section 86, Rem.Comp.Stat., now RCW 2.24.050) 'all of the acts and proceedings' of the court commissioners shall be subject to revision by the superior court, and, further, that 'such revision shall be upon the records of the case, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the court commissioner . . .' All the acts and proceedings mentioned in the statute undoubtedly include the rulings of the court commissioner upon the rejection or admission of evidence. The record of the case as mentioned in the statute, undoubtedly refers to something else than findings of fact and conclusions of law, for these are specially mentioned. It is clear, it seems to us, that what was contemplated by the Legislature was that, upon application, the trial court should review the Entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Marriage of Donboli, No. 53861-6-I (WA 7/18/2005)
...the commissioner, or order or conduct further proceedings in its discretion. Dodd, 120 Wn. App. at 643 (citing In re Smith, 8 Wn. App. 285, 288-89, 505 P.2d 1295 (1973)); see also RCW 2.24.050 (`All of the acts and proceedings of court commissioners hereunder shall be subject to revision by......
-
State v. Espinoza
...the commissioner. See In re McGee, 36 Wash.App. 660, 662, 679 P.2d 933, review denied,101 Wash.2d 1018 (1984); In re Smith, 8 Wash.App. 285, 288-89, 505 P.2d 1295 (1973). A juvenile has access to a revision hearing, but the hearing is not automatic. It is granted only by motion and may or m......
-
In re Marriage of Dodd
...court's scope of review is not limited merely to whether substantial evidence supports the commissioner's findings. In re Smith, 8 Wash.App. 285, 288, 505 P.2d 1295 (1973). Instead, the revision court has full jurisdiction over the case and is authorized to determine its own facts based on ......
-
Wiggs v. St. Clair
...deems necessary to resolve the matter." In re Welfare of McGee, 36 Wn. App. 660, 662, 679 P.2d 933 (1984) (citing In re Welfare of Smith, 8 Wn. App. 285, 505 P.2d 1295 (1973)); accord, B.S.S., 56 Wn. App. at 171. We review a trial court's modification of an order for child support for an ab......
-
Table of Cases
...Smith, In re Marriage of, 100 Wn.2d 319, 669 P.2d 448 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.02[4] Smith, In re Welfare of, 8 Wn. App. 285, 505 P.2d 1295 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.05[8] Smith; State v., 84 Wn. App. 813, 929 P.2d 1191, review denied, 13......
-
§24.05 Motions for Temporary Relief
...Wn.2d 979, 992-93, 976 P.2d 1240 (1999). But see Gainey v. Gainey, 89 Wn. App. 269, 273-74, 948 P.2d 865 (1997); In re Welfare of Smith, 8 Wn. App. 285, 505 P.2d 1295 (1973). In certain circumstances, a party may consider moving for a stay of a commissioner's ruling pending revision. A moti......