Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the practice in civil action shall govern all proceedings under this chapter, except that trial by jury is dispensed with.

(2) A proceeding for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation or a declaration concerning the validity of a marriage or domestic partnership shall be entitled "In re the marriage of . . . . . . and . . . . . ." or "In re the domestic partnership of . . . . . . and . . . . . ." Such proceedings may be filed in the superior court of the county where the petitioner resides.

(3) In cases where there has been no prior proceeding in this state involving the marital or domestic partnership status of the parties or support obligations for a minor child, a separate parenting and support proceeding between the parents shall be entitled "In re the parenting and support of . . . . . ."

(4) The initial pleading in all proceedings under this chapter shall be denominated a petition. A responsive pleading shall be denominated a response. Other pleadings, and all pleadings in other matters under this chapter shall be denominated as provided in the civil rules for superior court.

(5) In this chapter, "decree" includes "judgment".

(6) A decree of dissolution, of legal separation, or a declaration concerning the validity of a marriage or domestic partnership shall not be awarded to one of the parties, but shall provide that it affects the status previously existing between the parties in the manner decreed.

(7) In order to provide a means by which to facilitate a fair, efficient, and swift process to resolve matters regarding custody and visitation when a parent serving in the armed forces receives temporary duty, deployment, activation, or mobilization orders from the military, the court shall, upon motion of such a parent:

(a) For good cause shown, hold an expedited hearing in custody and visitation matters instituted under this chapter when the military duties of the parent have a material effect on the parent's ability, or anticipated ability, to appear in person at a regularly scheduled hearing; and

(b) Upon reasonable advance notice to the affected parties and for good cause shown, allow the parent to present testimony and evidence by electronic means in custody and visitation matters instituted under this chapter when the military duties of the parent have a material effect on the parent's ability to appear in person at a regularly scheduled hearing. The phrase "electronic means" includes communication by telephone, video teleconference, or the internet.

[ 2009 c 502 s 2; 2008 c 6 s 1004; 1989 c 375 s 1; 1987 c 460 s 1; 1975 c 32 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 1.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Title 7 RCW deals with “special proceedings,” and it does not mention family law matters. Special Proceedings Rules (SPR) governing divorce were rescinded in 1974.”

In Re Marriage of Kaseburg, 108 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 26.09.010(1), .080. A tort claimant is typically entitled to a jury trial and the plaintiff must prove fault, negligence, or strict liability.”

State v. Veliz, 298 P.3d 75 (Wash. 2013). “, former RCW 26.09.010 (1975), amended by Laws of 1987, ch.”

In re the Marriage of Kaseburg, 126 Wash. App. 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 26.09.010(1), .080. Atort claimant is typically entitled to a jury trial and the plaintiff must prove fault, negligence, or strict liability.”

In the Matter of Custody of Stell, 783 P.2d 615 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “*364 RCW 26.09.010. In accordance with its intent to reenact previous law, the Legislature reenacted the requirement that "[t]he court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.”

Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 153 Wash. App. 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶19 RCW 26.09.010(5) specifically provides that the term “[dissolution] decree” includes the term “judgment.”

Brust v. Newton, 852 P.2d 1092 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 26.09.010. However, the majority of courts and legal scholars considering the question of whether a particular issue should be for the judge or the jury in a legal malpractice action have declined to analyze it in terms of whether that issue would have been one for the judge…”

Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 173 Wash. 2d 40 (Wash. 2011). “However, the Bank contends that the award to Treiger of one-half of the net proceeds of the sale of the Maplewood property did not create a lien interest in the property because the amount was not a sum certain and the Supplemental Decree did not include an express lien.”

In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW Title 7 deals with "special proceedings," and it does not mention family law matters.”

Hartley v. Liberty Park Assocs., 774 P.2d 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “See RCW 26.09.010(5). 2 RCW 4.56.190 states in relevant part: "The real estate of any judgment debtor, and such as the judgment debtor may acquire, not exempt by law, shall be held and bound to satisfy any judgment of the .”

Wimmer v. Wimmer, 723 P.2d 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “Thus, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion when it provided for the future welfare of Krissie by ordering child support for higher education if she elected to go to school because there was sufficient evidence of a substantial change not contemplated by the…”

In Re the Marriage of Peck, 920 P.2d 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “He concedes that the Washington court has jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage based on Cathy’s Pierce County residency, RCW 26.09.010(2), .030, and jurisdiction to adjudicate the children’s custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, RCW 26.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.010(1) — 9 cases

In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Title 7 RCW deals with “special proceedings,” and it does not mention family law matters. Special Proceedings Rules (SPR) governing divorce were rescinded in 1974.”

In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW Title 7 deals with "special proceedings," and it does not mention family law matters.”

Traci Fallow, V. Troy Fallow (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.010(2) — 4 cases

In Re the Marriage of Strohmaier, 659 P.2d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983).

DeLaGarza v. Rennebohm, 602 P.2d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).

In re the Marriage of Shaw, 735 P.2d 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.010(3) — 1 case

In Re The Parenting & Support Of K.j.w. Glenda Tomes, V Donald Wallace (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.010(4) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of Parker, 897 P.2d 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.010(5) — 5 cases

Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 153 Wash. App. 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶19 RCW 26.09.010(5) specifically provides that the term “[dissolution] decree” includes the term “judgment.”

Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 221 P.3d 917 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 266 P.3d 211 (Wash. 2011).

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.