Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Either spouse or either domestic partner may sue on behalf of the community: PROVIDED, That
(1) When the action is for personal injuries, the spouse or the domestic partner having sustained personal injuries is a necessary party;
(2) When the action is for compensation for services rendered, the spouse or the domestic partner having rendered the services is a necessary party.
[ 2008 c 6 s 407; 1972 ex.s. c 108 s 1; Code 1881 s 6; 1877 p 4 s 6; 1875 p 4 s 2; 1869 p 4 s 6; 1854 p 131 s 5; RRS s 181.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Vasey v. Snohomish Cnty., 721 P.2d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vasey v. Snohomish Cnty., 721 P.2d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “RCW 4.08.030. 4 However, this does not mean that the marital community is treated as a juristic entity bringing the action.”
Lund v. Caple, 675 P.2d 226 (Wash. 1984). “Respondents contend that under the statute the wife was a necessary party to any action based upon Caple's alleged tortious conduct and absent her joinder the lawsuit should be dismissed.”
Landry v. Luscher, 976 P.2d 1274 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 4.08.030; Harry M. Cross, The Community Property Law in Washington (Revised 1985), 61 Wash.”
Grayson v. Platis, 978 P.2d 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 4.08.030 and RCW 4.08.040. Vasey v. Snohomish County, 44 Wn.”
Ash v. S. S. Mullen, Inc., 261 P.2d 118 (Wash. 1953). “, § 181], which specifically limits the actions which a married woman may bring without joining her husband; and then, since it must be conceded that he is not entitled to any recovery against his employer except that provided by the workmen’s compensation act, it is alleged…”
Graham v. Radford, 431 P.2d 193 (Wash. 1967). “Since the above authorities establish the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, we need not decide whether, as the defendant contends, RCW 4.08.030 (now CR 19(e)), providing that husband and wife must be joined in certain actions, requires the joinder of the estate of a…”
Emilio M. Kosrovani, V. Roger Jobs Motors, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RJM further argued that Kosrovani could not prosecute a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Hansen, who was not identified in the complaint as a party, because he was neither married nor in a state-registered domestic partnership with her as required by RCW 4.08.030. On March…”
Emilio M. Kosrovani, V. Roger Jobs Motors, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RJM further argued that Kosrovani could not prosecute a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Hansen, who was not identified in the complaint as a party, because he was neither married nor in a state-registered domestic partnership with her as required by RCW 4.08.030. On March…”
Stafford Healthcare Seatac, Llc, V. Gale M. Page (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” However, RCW 4.08.030 is entitled, “Either spouse or either domestic partner may sue for community—Necessary parties,” and has nothing to do with default judgments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.030(1) — 1 case
Lund v. Caple, 675 P.2d 226 (Wash. 1984). “Respondents contend that under the statute the wife was a necessary party to any action based upon Caple's alleged tortious conduct and absent her joinder the lawsuit should be dismissed.”
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.