Opinion ID: 2608708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: proof of service

Text: The Court of Appeals held that the appeal to Superior Court must be dismissed because of its interpretation of the facts of service, as contained in affidavits attached to Wilson's second motion for reconsideration. Because the issue was not raised until after the appellate court had acted on Wilson's substantive claims, this factual evidence of service was not considered at the trial court level. [4] In absence of factual findings, however, the appellate court erred in considering the facts set forth by affidavit before it. It was inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to decide this case on evidence not put before the trial court. LaMon v. Westport, 22 Wn. App. 215, 220, 588 P.2d 1205 (1978). As we have noted in a previous case, This court is a reviewing court, and, on appeal, considers only such evidence as was admitted in the trial court. On appeal of the case to this court, it would be very unfair to the trial judge to consider evidence in this court which was not before him when he entered his decision in the case. Casco Co. v. PUD 1, 37 Wn.2d 777, 784-85, 226 P.2d 235 (1951). The appeal function does not encompass factual determination of the adequacy of service. The ambiguous character of the evidence presented by respondent's affidavits, and petitioners' lack of an opportunity or a mechanism to present rebutting testimony demonstrate the wisdom of prohibiting the appellate court from making such a factual determination itself. The affidavits considered by the Court of Appeals were themselves subject to interpretation different from that adopted by the court. This case thus must be remanded to the trial court for exposition of the facts surrounding service that can prove or disprove whether the notice of appeal was actually received by the Director or was served in a manner reasonably calculated to give him notice. RAP 9.11.