& Nursery, Inc., 21 Wn. App. 194, 197 n.5, 584 P.2d 968 (1978). Findings of fact that in
reality pronounce legal conclusions are treated as legal conclusions. Fine v. Laband, 35
Wn. App. 368, 374, 667 P.2d 101 (1983). "A trial court's conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo." Inland Foundry Co. v. Dep't ofLabor & Indus., 106 Wn. App. 333,
340,24 P.3d 424 (2001).
c. Application ofthe two rules ofreview to challengedfinding offact 5
Ms. Goodeill assigns error to the superior court's critical finding of fact 5:
"Madison Real Estate was prevented from sending a full and specific statement within 14
days because of circumstances beyond their control, i.e., not receiving invoices until
September 18 and October 1,2013." CP at 53. First, the superior court did not weigh
conflicting evidence to make this quoted finding. Therefore, as explained above, our
12
No. 32442-7-111
Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate
review of the evidence pertaining to this finding is de novo. Second, even had the
superior court weighed conflicting evidence to make finding of fact 5, our review still
would be de novo. This is because finding of fact 5 is actually a conclusion of law. Here,
the superior court interpreted the meaning of "circumstances beyond the landlord's
control" in RCW 59.18.280 and then applied that interpretation to evidentiary facts.
Pursuant to Moulden, this application of law to evidentiary facts constitutes a legal
conclusion. For both of these reasons, we review finding of fact 5 de novo.
d. Applying the plain meaning ofthe statutory exception
RCW 59.18.280 provides, in relevant part: