Opinion
No. 56791-8-I.
November 13, 2006.
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-4-07005-7, Mary E. Roberts, J., entered July 13 and 25, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), John R. Scannell, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Raymond Jay Walters, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Art Smith appeals from orders signed by a superior court judge denying Smith's motion for revision of a commissioner's order and Smith's subsequent motion for reconsideration. However, the only "evidence" the superior court judge expressly considered in denying either motion was the contents of an electronic recording of the hearing before the commissioner. Smith has failed to provide a copy or transcript of that recording to this court. Thus, we do not have before us the evidentiary basis of the superior court's decision. That omission precludes review. Accordingly, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2004, Smith filed a claim against the estate of William Shannon in King County Superior Court. The court granted the estate's motion to strike the claim. In February 2005, the personal representative of the estate filed a petition for a hearing on the merits, supported by affidavits. Smith filed an answer to the petition that included counterclaims, also supported by an affidavit.
On May 11, 2005, a commissioner of the court, after considering the petition, answer, and supporting affidavits, entered an order in favor of the estate. On May 23, 2005, Smith filed a motion for revision of the commissioner's decision. On July 12, 2005, a superior court judge entered an order denying the motion for revision, which states in relevant part:
Petitioner Smith having failed to provide the Court with copies of documents considered by the commissioner, but respondent's counsel having provided an electronic recording of the hearing before Commissioner Prochnau, which the Court reviewed and considered, the motion for Revision is DENIED.
On July 22, 2005, Smith filed a motion for reconsideration, submitting therewith copies of the affidavits considered by the commissioner in the prior hearing. On July 25, 2005, the judge entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration, without specifying whether she considered the affidavits before ruling.
Smith appeals, contending that the superior court judge erred by denying his motions for revision and reconsideration. Smith has provided us with the evidentiary submissions considered by the commissioner but has not provided us with any version of the electronic recording of the hearing before the commissioner, which was the only material expressly considered by the superior court judge in deciding the motion for revision. Smith also did not provide us with a transcript of the hearing before the superior court judge.
DISCUSSION
A ruling by a court commissioner is subject to revision by the superior court. Wash. Const. art. IV, § 23. Pursuant to RCW 2.24.050, a party may make a demand for revision within 10 days from the entry of an order or judgment of a court commissioner. Once the superior court makes a decision on a motion for revision, any further appeal is from the superior court's decision, not the commissioner's ruling. State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 113, 86 P.3d 132 (2004).
In an appeal before this court, the appellant bears the burden of perfecting the record so that we may review all evidence relevant to the issue before us. Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 91 Wn. App. 688, 692-693, 959 P.2d 687 (1998). In reviewing a superior court's decision, the proper record consists of that which was before the superior court, no more, no less. Gaupholm v. Aurora Office Bldgs., Inc., 2 Wn. App. 256, 257, 467 P.2d 628 (1970).
In this case, Smith has provided us only with those materials he placed before the superior court in support of the motion to reconsider. However, in ruling on the motion for revision, the judge expressly considered only the electronic recording of the proceedings before the commissioner rather than the affidavits submitted to the commissioner, and denied Smith's claim on the merits based on that record. Even assuming that the trial court later considered the affidavits provided by Smith in ruling on the motion to reconsider, those materials supplemented, rather than replaced, the electronic record upon which the superior court based its initial decision.
A previously noted, Smith had not caused the evidentiary documents submitted to the commissioner to be placed before the superior court judge in support of the motion for revision. Although this alone could have justified denial of the revision motion, it appears that the judge attempted to accommodate Smith by reviewing the electronic record of the hearing before the commissioner.
In the absence of the record upon which the superior court based its decision, we are left to speculate as to the basis for that decision. The Rules of Appellate Procedure are designed to avoid such an eventuality. By failing to provide us with a record sufficient to afford effective appellate review, appellant has forfeited the opportunity to seek relief from this court. Gaupholm, 2 Wn. App. at 257.
Affirmed.
GROSSE and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.