evidence. This is true even where the trial court's findings are based entirely on
documentary evidence, provided that the trial court was called on to reconcile conflicting
evidence. Inre Marriage o/Rideout, 150 Wn.2d337, 351, 77P.3d 1174(2003).
However,
"where ... the trial court has not seen nor heard testimony requiring it to
assess the credibility or competency of witnesses, and to weigh the
evidence, nor reconcile conflicting evidence, then on appeal a court of
review stands in the same position as the trial court in looking at the facts of
the case and should review the record de novo."
State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718, 727, 317 P .3d 1029 (2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. o/Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243,
252, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)). In Kipp, the trial court ruled on a motion to suppress an audio
recording. Id at 726. The evidence considered by the trial court was a written stipulation
mistakenly refer to the appeal as a trial de novo, rather than a de novo appeal on the
record. The amendment makes clear that there is no new trial in superior court. LAWS OF
2001, ch. 156, § 2.
10
No. 32442-7-III
Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate
to background facts and the 10-minute audio recording. Id. at 723. The question argued
to the trial court was whether the recording was of a "private conversation" within the
meaning ofRCW 9.73.030(1)(b). Id. at 722-24. If so, the recording was required to be
suppressed pursuant to RCW 9.73.050. Id. at 724. The trial court ruled that the recording
was not of a "private conversation" within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 722. The