Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.630 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every person who goes onto the land of another and who removes timber, crops, minerals, or other similar valuable property from the land, or wrongfully causes waste or injury to the land, or wrongfully injures personal property or improvements to real estate on the land, is liable to the injured party for treble the amount of the damages caused by the removal, waste, or injury. For purposes of this section, a person acts "wrongfully" if the person intentionally and unreasonably commits the act or acts while knowing, or having reason to know, that he or she lacks authorization to so act. Damages recoverable under this section include, but are not limited to, damages for the market value of the property removed or injured, and for injury to the land, including the costs of restoration. In addition, the person is liable for reimbursing the injured party for the party's reasonable costs, including but not limited to investigative costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation-related costs.
(2) This section does not apply in any case where liability for damages is provided under RCW 64.12.030, * 79.01.756, 79.01.760, 79.40.070, or where there is immunity from liability under RCW 64.12.035.
[ 1999 c 248 s 2; 1994 c 280 s 1.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 79.01.756, 79.01.760, and 79.40.070 were recodified as RCW 79.02.320, 79.02.300, and 79.02.340, respectively, pursuant to 2003 c 334 s 554. RCW 79.02.340 was subsequently repealed by 2009 c 349 s 5.
Severability—1999 c 248: See note following RCW 64.12.035.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: James & Holly Kave, V Mcintosh Ridge Primary Road Assoc, 394 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James & Holly Kave, V Mcintosh Ridge Primary Road Assoc, 394 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 40× “030 and waste under RCW 4.24.630. The trial court dismissed all of the Kaves’ claims before trial.”
Gunn v. Riely, 344 P.3d 1225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 22× “The Rielys argue that the trial court erred when it (1) applied RCW 4.24.630, the waste statute, instead of RCW 64.”
Standing Rock Homeowners Ass'n v. Misich, 23 P.3d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “*238 ISSUES Did the trial court err by (A) not declaring the portion of Camp 12 Road running through Standing Rock to be a public road by prescription under RCW 36.75.080, or (B) by abusing its equitable discretion when concluding Standing Rock could maintain unlocked gates?…”
Colwell v. Etzell, 81 P.3d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 19× “He challenges the trial court’s finding that he violated RCW 4.24.630 1 by intentionally interfering with the Colwells’ easement.”
Porter v. Kirkendoll, 449 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 9× “Porter and Zimmer sued the Kirkendolls, G & J Logging,' and Boone's Mechanical Cutting^ for waste under RCW 4.24.630 and for timber trespass under RCW 64.”
Standing Rock Homeowners Assn. v. Misich, 23 P.3d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “ISSUES Did the trial court err by (A) not declaring the portion of Camp 12 Road running through Standing Rock to be a public road by prescription under RCW 36.”
Clipse v. Michels Pipeline Constr., Inc., 225 P.3d 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “¶1 On this certified question of statutory interpretation, we hold that a plaintiff may establish a claim for treble damages for wrongful trespass under RCW 4.24.630 only by showing that defendants intentionally and *575 unreasonably committed one or more acts for which they…”
JDFJ CORP. v. Int'l Raceway, Inc., 970 P.2d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “, should be held liable for treble damages under RCW 4.24.630 (removal of timber without authority), rather than timber trespass damages under RCW 64.”
Womack v. Von Rardon, 135 P.3d 542 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Womack contends statutory waste under RCW 4.24.630 is apt. We disagree. Plainly, the statute requires a showing the defendant "wrongfully" injured "personal property or improvements to real estate on the land.”
Womack v. Von Rardon, 133 Wash. App. 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Womack contends statutory waste under RCW 4.24.630 is apt. We disagree. Plainly, the statute requires a showing the defendant “wrongfully” injured “personal property or improvements to real estate on the land.”
Bird v. Best Plumbing Grp., LLC, 287 P.3d 551 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 3× “The demand followed Bird’s counsel’s assertion that Best may be liable under the treble damages provision of the trespass statute, RCW 4.24.630. Farmers then made *763 a counter settlement offer of $350,000.”
Darlington Ofuasia Et Al., Appellants, v. Dana William Smurr Et Al., Respondents, 392 P.3d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “1 RCW 4.24.630; RCW 64.12.030. 2 Smurr also argues that whether planting of arborvitae trees was sufficient evidence was not adequately developed.”
Show all 105 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.630(1) — 54 cases
Standing Rock Homeowners Ass'n v. Misich, 23 P.3d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “*238 ISSUES Did the trial court err by (A) not declaring the portion of Camp 12 Road running through Standing Rock to be a public road by prescription under RCW 36.75.080, or (B) by abusing its equitable discretion when concluding Standing Rock could maintain unlocked gates?…”
James & Holly Kave, V Mcintosh Ridge Primary Road Assoc, 394 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “030 and waste under RCW 4.24.630. The trial court dismissed all of the Kaves’ claims before trial.”
Standing Rock Homeowners Assn. v. Misich, 23 P.3d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “ISSUES Did the trial court err by (A) not declaring the portion of Camp 12 Road running through Standing Rock to be a public road by prescription under RCW 36.”
Colwell v. Etzell, 81 P.3d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “He challenges the trial court’s finding that he violated RCW 4.24.630 1 by intentionally interfering with the Colwells’ easement.”
Porter v. Kirkendoll, 449 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2019). “Porter and Zimmer sued the Kirkendolls, G & J Logging,' and Boone's Mechanical Cutting^ for waste under RCW 4.24.630 and for timber trespass under RCW 64.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.630(2) — 10 cases
Porter v. Kirkendoll, 449 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2019). “Porter and Zimmer sued the Kirkendolls, G & J Logging,' and Boone's Mechanical Cutting^ for waste under RCW 4.24.630 and for timber trespass under RCW 64.”
Gunn v. Riely, 344 P.3d 1225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The Rielys argue that the trial court erred when it (1) applied RCW 4.24.630, the waste statute, instead of RCW 64.”
Jerry Porter & Karen Zimmer, V Curtis & Pepper Kirkendoll, 421 P.3d 1036 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Jerry Porter & Karen Zimmer, V Curtis & Pepper Kirkendoll (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
William Pace & Marcia Pace v. Michael R. Hall (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.