Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.215 (2026)
Revision by the superior court
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
All acts and proceedings of the court commissioners shall be subject to revision by the superior court as provided in RCW 2.24.050.
[ 1991 c 367 s 18.]
Notes:
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Williams, 156 Wash. App. 22 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
In re the Marriage of Williams, 156 Wash. App. 22 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “ANALYSIS Combining Contempt Allegations ¶7 The issue is whether the trial court erred in combining Mr.”
Williams v. Williams, 232 P.3d 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “*575 ANALYSIS Combining Contempt Allegations ¶ 7 The issue is whether the trial court erred in combining Mr.”
Robertson v. Robertson, 54 P.3d 708 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Any party in interest may have such revision upon demand made by written motion, filed with the clerk of the superior court, within ten days after the entry of any order or judgment of the court commissioner.”
David L. Hayes v. Crystal J. Fox (hayes) (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW26.12.215; RCW 2.24.050.~ On revision, the superior court reviews both the commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo based upon the evidence and issues presented to the commissioner.”
D. Bruce Stokstad v. Lucky Stokstad (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The court denied Bruce's motion for reconsideration and for additional findings and awarded Lucy attorney fees.”
In Re The Marriage Of Jonathan J. Arras, Res. & Laura G. Arras (now Mccabe), App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The court found it "astonishing" that McCabe asked the court below to make her the obligee and affirmed the commissioner's ruling denying that request.”
Glenna J. Brinker v. John P. Brinker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “It determined that “[t]he Respondent did not establish an adequate basis to revise the commissioner’s Order Clarifying June 2011 Domestic Relations Order.”
Katherine Dawn Brown, V. Geoffrey Bryan Thomas (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 26.12.215; RCW 2.24.050; In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Nancy A. Mayberry & Stanley A. Mayberry (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “Nancy responds that the court made a proper credibility judgment as to Stanley’s evidence, which supports the contempt finding.”
William Hust, V. Monica Milem (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” Furthermore, it noted that because the order to surrender weapons was from the companion case and not the underlying case to this appeal, it was not properly before the court and thus did not rule on it. Hust timely appeals the order on revision.”
Matthew Merz, V. Harlyn Jenkins (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3d 573 (2010) (citing RCW 26.12.215; RCW 2.24.050; In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.”
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.