Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When a party who (1) is a resident of this state, or (2) is a member of the armed forces and is stationed in this state, or (3) is married or in a domestic partnership to a party who is a resident of this state or who is a member of the armed forces and is stationed in this state, petitions for a dissolution of marriage or dissolution of domestic partnership, and alleges that the marriage or domestic partnership is irretrievably broken and when ninety days have elapsed since the petition was filed and from the date when service of summons was made upon the respondent or the first publication of summons was made, the court shall proceed as follows:
(a) If the other party joins in the petition or does not deny that the marriage or domestic partnership is irretrievably broken, the court shall enter a decree of dissolution.
(b) If the other party alleges that the petitioner was induced to file the petition by fraud, or coercion, the court shall make a finding as to that allegation and, if it so finds shall dismiss the petition.
(c) If the other party denies that the marriage or domestic partnership is irretrievably broken the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition and the prospects for reconciliation and shall:
(i) Make a finding that the marriage or domestic partnership is irretrievably broken and enter a decree of dissolution of the marriage or domestic partnership; or
(ii) At the request of either party or on its own motion, transfer the cause to the family court, refer them to another counseling service of their choice, and request a report back from the counseling service within sixty days, or continue the matter for not more than sixty days for hearing. If the cause is returned from the family court or at the adjourned hearing, the court shall:
(A) Find that the parties have agreed to reconciliation and dismiss the petition; or
(B) Find that the parties have not been reconciled, and that either party continues to allege that the marriage or domestic partnership is irretrievably broken. When such facts are found, the court shall enter a decree of dissolution of the marriage or domestic partnership.
(d) If the petitioner requests the court to decree legal separation in lieu of dissolution, the court shall enter the decree in that form unless the other party objects and petitions for a decree of dissolution or declaration of invalidity.
(e) In considering a petition for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, a court shall not use a party's pregnancy as the sole basis for denying or delaying the entry of a decree of dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership. Granting a decree of dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership when a party is pregnant does not affect further proceedings under chapter 26.26A or 26.26B RCW.
[ 2019 c 46 s 5019; 2008 c 6 s 1006; 2005 c 55 s 1; 1996 c 23 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 3.]

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 (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Buecking, 316 P.3d 999 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Buecking, 316 P.3d 999 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 14× “¶4 RCW 26.09.030 provides that a court may enter a decree of dissolution when “ninety days have elapsed since *442 the petition was filed.”
In Re the Marriage of Little, 634 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 14× “This conclusion *187 rested upon the court's interpretation of RCW 26.09.030, [1] which gives residents of this state a right to a dissolution decree 90 days after the petition is filed and summons served if the parties file jointly or there is no denial that the marriage is…”
In Re the Marriage of Ways, 538 P.2d 1225 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 28× “Petitioner, however, relied on RCW 26.09.030 which provides for jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage "when a party .”
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Of course, under RCW 26.09.030 the parties in dissolution proceedings must wait 90 days before entering a final dissolution decree after filing and service of the summons and petition.”
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Of course, under RCW 26.09.030 the parties in dissolution proceedings must wait 90 days before entering a final dissolution decree after filing and service of the summons and petition.”
In Re the Marriage of Washburn, 677 P.2d 152 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 26.09.030, the sole basis for dissolution of a marriage is that it is irretrievably broken.”
In Re the Marriage of Gannon, 702 P.2d 465 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 4× “Thus, despite our acknowledgment that a guardian lacked standing to bring a dissolution action on behalf of his ward without specific statutory authority, the Legislature did not include such authority in the newly enacted dissolution act.”
In Re Marriage of Moody, 976 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.09.030. If the petitioner for dissolution requests the court to enter a decree of legal separation in lieu of dissolution, the court must enter the decree in that form, unless the other party objects and files a petition for dissolution.”
In re the Marriage of Moody, 976 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 26.09.030. If the *990 petitioner for dissolution requests the court to enter a decree of legal separation in lieu of dissolution, the court must enter the decree in that form, unless the other party objects and files a petition for dissolution.”
Matter of Marriage of Ieronimakis, 831 P.2d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “*101 Subject matter jurisdiction became vested in Washington when Helen lawfully removed the children from Greece and brought them to Washington, where she established a domicile for herself and for the children who were lawfully in her custody and when Helen thereafter…”
In Re the Marriage of Markowski, 749 P.2d 754 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “petitions for a dissolution of marriage, and alleges that the marriage is irretrievably broken and when ninety days have elapsed since the petition was filed and from the date when service of summons was made upon the respondent or the first publication of summons was made, the…”
In Re the Marriage of Hermsen, 617 P.2d 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “RCW 26.09.030; CR 56(a). The trial court directed the entry of a final decree of dissolution after finding no just reason to delay termination of the marriage until the other factual and legal matters were decided.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030(1) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Parker, 897 P.2d 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Seizer v. Sessions, 915 P.2d 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030(3) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Little, 634 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1981). “This conclusion *187 rested upon the court's interpretation of RCW 26.09.030, [1] which gives residents of this state a right to a dissolution decree 90 days after the petition is filed and summons served if the parties file jointly or there is no denial that the marriage is…”
In Re the Marriage of Hermsen, 617 P.2d 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “RCW 26.09.030; CR 56(a). The trial court directed the entry of a final decree of dissolution after finding no just reason to delay termination of the marriage until the other factual and legal matters were decided.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030(3)(b) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Little, 634 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1981). “This conclusion *187 rested upon the court's interpretation of RCW 26.09.030, [1] which gives residents of this state a right to a dissolution decree 90 days after the petition is filed and summons served if the parties file jointly or there is no denial that the marriage is…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030(4) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Moody, 976 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 26.09.030. If the petitioner for dissolution requests the court to enter a decree of legal separation in lieu of dissolution, the court must enter the decree in that form, unless the other party objects and files a petition for dissolution.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030(a) — 1 case
David Patten v. Leslie Patten (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.030(l) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Buecking & Buecking, 274 P.3d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
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.