Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.090 (2026)

Action to cancel tax deed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Actions to set aside or cancel any deed heretofore or hereafter issued by any county treasurer after and upon the sale of lands for general, state, county or municipal taxes, or upon the sale of lands acquired by any county on foreclosure of general, state, county or municipal taxes, or for the recovery of any lands so sold, must be brought within three years from and after the date of the issuance of such treasurer's deed.
[ 1949 c 74 s 1; 1907 c 173 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 162.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: Transitional proviso omitted. The proviso reads: "PROVIDED, This act shall not apply to actions not otherwise barred on deeds heretofore issued if the same be commenced within one year after the passage of this act".
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: Fitzgerald v. Neves, Inc., 550 P.2d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fitzgerald v. Neves, Inc., 550 P.2d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “Both Neves and Kitsap County contend, however, that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the statute of limitations, RCW 4.16.090, which requires actions to set aside a treasurer’s deed to be commenced within 3 years from the date of *425 issuance.”
Kupka v. Reid, 312 P.2d 1056 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “The description was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction in the tax foreclosure proceeding, and the judgment and sale were void. We now come to the second issue.”
Morcom v. Brunner, 635 P.2d 778 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “Nevertheless, Brunner contends, citing RCW 4.16.090, 1 the Morcoms were not "original owners" *534 continuing in possession and did not commence this action to clear title until August 1978, more than 4 years after issuance and recording of the tax deed, and therefore can no…”
Us Bank v. North Am. Title Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “CV Joint Ventures asserts that the three-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.090 bars this action, because the tax deed was issued in December 2009 and U.”
Knapp v. Goudschaal (W.D. Wash. 2024). “) In his 23 proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds factual allegations to provide greater context for 24 1 the lawsuit; corrects a typographical error which inadvertently cited “RCW 4.16.090” instead of 2 “RCW 4.16.190” (applicable tolling provision); and asserts an…”
Us Bank Nat'l Assn, V. David Vournas (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Bank’s collateral attack on the tax deed is untimely under RCW 4.16.090, (2) U.S. Bank’s reformation claim is untimely under RCW 4.”
Harry, Betty May, Timothy & Scott Corliss, Apps. v. Larry P. Hughes & Harry & Beth Hart, Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Hughes and Hart filed motions for summary judgment based on the three-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.090. They argued that the Corlisses had notice of their claims in 2005 from Hughes' letter and in 2007 through Carrosino.”
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.