Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.18.150 (2026)

Bond or other security

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In any action to enforce a support or maintenance order under Title 26 RCW, the court may, in its discretion, order a parent obligated to pay support for a minor child or person owing a duty of maintenance to post a bond or other security with the court. The bond or other security shall be in the amount of support or maintenance due for a two-year period. The bond or other security is subject to approval by the court. The bond shall include the name and address of the issuer. If the bond is canceled, any person issuing a bond under this section shall notify the court and the person entitled to receive payment under the order.
(2) If the obligor fails to make payments as required under the court order, the person entitled to receive payment may recover on the bond or other security in the existing proceeding. The court may, after notice and hearing, increase the amount of the bond or other security. Failure to comply with the court's order to obtain and maintain a bond or other security may be treated as contempt of court.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1037; 1993 c 426 s 12; 1984 c 260 s 15.]

Notes:

Part headings not lawSeverability2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Sievers, 897 P.2d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re the Marriage of Sievers, 897 P.2d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Eisenberg points to RCW 26.18.150, a statute which authorizes the court to require a bond or other security for the amount of child support or spousal maintenance due for a two-year period.”
In re the Marriage of Olson, 999 P.2d 1286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “170 even if a bond or other security to ensure support payments is in place under RCW 26.18.150; the existence of the security does not render the parent’s modification request moot.”
Yohannes v. Olympic Collection Inc (OCI) (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “However, unlike 21 the garnishment statute, which provides an opportunity for the garnishment debtor to controvert the garnishee’s answer, under RCW § 26.18.150 “in a hearing to quash, modify, or terminate the wage 22 assignment order or income withholding order, the court may…”
Gillian Ben-artzi, Resp-cross App, Eric Ben-artzi, Resp v. Kilgour William, App-cross Res (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” As an alternative, she asked that the trial court order Ben-Artzi to place “the equivalent of two years’ of child support in the court’s registry pursuant to RCW 26.18.150.” In response, Kilgour, Williams, KWG, and Labaton argued that Hopson’s request for the establishment of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.18.150(2) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Olson, 999 P.2d 1286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “170 even if a bond or other security to ensure support payments is in place under RCW 26.18.150; the existence of the security does not render the parent’s modification request moot.”
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.