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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.080 (2026)

Action on assigned choses in action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any assignee or assignees of any judgment, bond, specialty, book account, or other chose in action, for the payment of money, by assignment in writing, signed by the person authorized to make the same, may, by virtue of such assignment, sue and maintain an action or actions in his or her name, against the obligor or obligors, debtor or debtors, named in such judgment, bond, specialty, book account, or other chose in action, notwithstanding the assignor may have an interest in the thing assigned: PROVIDED, That any debtor may plead in defense as many defenses, counterclaims and offsets, whether they be such as have heretofore been denominated legal or equitable, or both, if held by him against the original owner, against the debt assigned, save that no counterclaim or offset shall be pleaded against negotiable paper assigned before due, and where the holder thereof has purchased the same in good faith and for value, and is the owner of all interest therein.
[ 1927 c 87 s 1; 1891 c 30 s 2; Code 1881 s 15; 1879 p 122 s 1; 1854 p 131 s 3; RRS s 191.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Stratman, 292 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Stratman, 292 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “’ ” 28 ¶14 Stratman argues that defense counsel did not have the “authority” to represent American Express pursuant to RCW 4.08.080. But RCW 4.08.080 involves the authorization of an assignee of a debt to file suit in its own name as long as such an assignment is in writing.”
Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., 194 P.3d 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “¶ 38 Harbour Homes also challenges the validity of the assigned claims in that the assignments were not made "for the payment of money" as it claims is required under RCW 4.08.080. *288 ¶ 39 Questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo.”
Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., 147 Wash. App. 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “¶38 Harbour Homes also challenges the validity of the assigned claims in that the assignments were not made “for the payment of money” as it claims is required under RCW 4.08.080. ¶39 Questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo.”
Mrc Receivables Corp. v. Zion, 218 P.3d 621 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “MRC failed to do so because it provided no proof of a written assignment as required by RCW 4.08.080. Accordingly, we reverse the order on summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.”
Mrc Receivables Corp. v. Zion, 218 P.3d 621 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “MRC failed to do so because it provided no proof of a written assignment as required by RCW 4.08.080. Accordingly, we reverse the order on summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.”
Zimmerman v. Kyte, 765 P.2d 905 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.08.080 permits an assignee of a chose in action "by assignment in writing" to sue on the cause in the assignee's own name.”
Tobin v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 239 P.3d 544 (Wash. 2010). “¶ 26 For the reasons discussed above, we hold that chapter 51.24 RCW does not authorize the Department to subject pain and suffering damages to its reimbursement calculation.”
Tobin v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 396 (Wash. 2010). “¶26 For the reasons discussed above, we hold that chapter 51.24 RCW does not authorize the Department to subject pain and suffering damages to its reimbursement calculation.”
Unifund Ccr Partners v. Sunde, 260 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶17 RCW 4.08.080 provides that an assignee who has received an assignment in writing may sue and maintain an action against debtors of the assigned accounts.”
Fed. Fin. Co. v. Gerard, 949 P.2d 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “46 That supplemental authority, RCW 4.08.080 and RCW 62A.3-305, does nothing to alter our analysis or conclusions.”
Sherwood & Roberts—Yakima, Inc. v. Leach, 409 P.2d 160 (Wash. 1965). “See, RCW 4.08.080; and Doub v. Rawson, 142 Wash.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wendt, 735 P.2d 1334 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 4.08.080; Stover v. Winston Bros. Co.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.