Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.13.310 (2026)

Court costs and counsel fees

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The court in a proceeding commenced under RCW 23B.13.300 shall determine all costs of the proceeding, including the reasonable compensation and expenses of appraisers appointed by the court. The court shall assess the costs against the corporation, except that the court may assess the costs against all or some of the dissenters, in amounts the court finds equitable, to the extent the court finds the dissenters acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith in demanding payment under RCW 23B.13.280.

(2) The court may also assess the fees and expenses of counsel and experts for the respective parties, in amounts the court finds equitable:

(a) Against the corporation and in favor of any or all dissenters if the court finds the corporation did not substantially comply with the requirements of RCW 23B.13.200 through 23B.13.280; or

(b) Against either the corporation or a dissenter, in favor of any other party, if the court finds that the party against whom the fees and expenses are assessed acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith with respect to the rights provided by chapter 23B.13 RCW.

(3) If the court finds that the services of counsel for any dissenter were of substantial benefit to other dissenters similarly situated, and that the fees for those services should not be assessed against the corporation, the court may award to these counsel reasonable fees to be paid out of the amounts awarded the dissenters who were benefited.

[ 1989 c 165 s 153.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2021 · leading case: SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 331 P.3d 40 (Wash. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 331 P.3d 40 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision as to the summary judgment valuation ruling.”

SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 309 P.3d 582 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “The court granted summary judgment and later awarded Sentinel its attorney fees and costs under RCW 23B.13.310. ¶8 The dissenters sought reconsideration, and Mr.”

Eagle View Tech., Inc. v. Yuri Pikover & 37 Tech. Ventures, Llc, 365 P.3d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “The record shows that evidence of Pikover’s conduct was discussed separately from trial court’s valuation decision.”

In Re Joanne K Blankenship Survivor's Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “81466-4-I/21 In SentinelC3, the trial court awarded fees under RCW 23B.13.310, which allows a court to award fees and costs “‘in amounts [it] finds equitable.”

Sentinel C3 v. Chris Hunt, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “The court granted summary judgment and later awarded Sentinel its attorney fees and costs under RCW 23B.13.310. The dissenters sought reconsideration and Mr.”

SentinelC3 v. Hunt (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals' decision as to the summary judgment valuation ruling.”

In re the Marriage of: Kert A. Carlson & Rebecca M. Carlson (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Eismann’s attorney fee expenditures by delaying production of documents, refusing to obey court orders, and by 3 For example, RCW 23B.13.310(2), which was discussed in SentinelC3, Inc.”

In re the Marriage of: Linda L. Mitrovich & Svetislav Mitrovich (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “In that case, the high court discussed an award of attorney fees pursuant to RCW 23B.13.310 and held that a trial court “must supply findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to permit a reviewing court to determine why the trial court awarded the amount in question.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.13.310(1) — 2 cases

SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 309 P.3d 582 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The court granted summary judgment and later awarded Sentinel its attorney fees and costs under RCW 23B.13.310. ¶8 The dissenters sought reconsideration, and Mr.”

Sentinel C3 v. Chris Hunt, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The court granted summary judgment and later awarded Sentinel its attorney fees and costs under RCW 23B.13.310. The dissenters sought reconsideration and Mr.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.13.310(2) — 3 cases

Eagle View Tech., Inc. v. Yuri Pikover & 37 Tech. Ventures, Llc, 365 P.3d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The record shows that evidence of Pikover’s conduct was discussed separately from trial court’s valuation decision.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.13.310(2)(a) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.13.310(2)(b) — 4 cases

SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 331 P.3d 40 (Wash. 2014). “We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision as to the summary judgment valuation ruling.”

In Re Joanne K Blankenship Survivor's Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “81466-4-I/21 In SentinelC3, the trial court awarded fees under RCW 23B.13.310, which allows a court to award fees and costs “‘in amounts [it] finds equitable.”

SentinelC3 v. Hunt (Wash. 2014). “We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals' decision as to the summary judgment valuation ruling.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.