Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.100 (2026)

Satisfaction of judgments for payment of money

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) When any judgment for the payment of money only shall have been paid or satisfied, the clerk of the court in which such judgment was rendered shall note upon the record in the execution docket satisfaction thereof giving the date of such satisfaction upon either the payment to such clerk of the amount of such judgment, costs and interest and any accrued costs by reason of the issuance of any execution, or the filing with such clerk of a satisfaction entitled in such action and identifying the same executed by the judgment creditor or his or her attorney of record in such action or his or her assignee acknowledged as deeds are acknowledged. The clerk has the authority to note the satisfaction of judgments for criminal and juvenile legal financial obligations when the clerk's record indicates payment in full or as directed by the court. Every satisfaction of judgment and every partial satisfaction of judgment which provides for the payment of money shall clearly designate the judgment creditor and his or her attorney if any, the judgment debtor, the amount or type of satisfaction, whether the satisfaction is full or partial, the cause number, and the date of entry of the judgment. A certificate by such clerk of the entry of such satisfaction by him or her may be filed in the office of the clerk of any county in which an abstract of such judgment has been filed. When so satisfied by the clerk or the filing of such certificate the lien of such judgment shall be discharged.

(2) The department of social and health services shall file a satisfaction of judgment for welfare fraud conviction if a person does not pay money through the clerk as required under subsection (1) of this section.

[ 2003 c 379 s 23; 1997 c 358 s 4; 1994 c 185 s 1; 1983 c 28 s 1; 1929 c 60 s 6; RRS s 454. Prior: 1893 c 42 s 7.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective dates—2003 c 379: See notes following RCW 9.94A.728.

Intent—Purpose—2003 c 379 ss 13-27: See note following RCW 9.94A.760.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: MKB Constructors v. Am. Zurich Ins., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (W.D. Wash. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MKB Constructors v. Am. Zurich Ins., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “at 4 ("[T]he Carney Badley Spellman fees would, standing alone, have the tort rate in RCW 4.56.100(3) applied .... ”).) . The court applies Washington law to determine the amount of fees because Washington law dictates whether fees are available in this case.”

Lindsay v. Pac. Topsoils, Inc., 120 P.3d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Lindsay in exchange for entry of a full satisfaction of judgment for this amount per RCW 4.56.100(1).” *677 ¶7 The next day PTI filed a motion requesting the trial court declare that PTI had paid the judgment for Lindsay in full.”

In Re the Est. of Bailey, 354 P.2d 920 (Wash. 1960). “In urging that such statutory authority exists in this state, appellant relies upon RCW 4.56.100, which provides: - “Satisfaction of judgments.”

Bus. Svcs. of Am. II v. Wafertech, 245 P.3d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Second, the note "Satisfaction 4-11-05" fails to comply with RCW 4.56.100(1) which requires [e]very satisfaction of judgment and every partial satisfaction of judgment which provides for the payment of money shall clearly designate the judgment creditor and his or her attorney…”

In Re Martin, 118 P.3d 387 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “040); civil procedure statutes addressing satisfaction of judgments (RCW 4.56.100); and statutes relating to county clerks' reporting of legal financial obligations (RCW 36.”

In re the Pers. Restraint of Martin, 129 Wash. App. 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “040); civil procedure statutes addressing satisfaction of judgments (RCW 4.56.100); and statutes relating to county clerks’ reporting of legal financial obligations (RCW 36.”

Bus. Servs. of Am. II, Inc. v. WaferTech, LLC, 159 Wash. App. 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Second, the note “Satisfaction 4-11-05” fails to comply with RCW 4.56.100(1), which requires [e]very satisfaction of judgment and every partial satisfaction of judgment which provides for the payment of money shall clearly designate the judgment creditor and his or her attorney…”

James W. Aaseby et ux v. William Vue (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 15× “Miller satisfied the judgment in full under RCW 4.56.100, the judgment was discharged and Mr.”

Lindeman Bros., Inc. v. Pac. Recycle, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “Attorney fee award for intransigence Stehrenberger contends the trial court erred by awarding attorney fee sanctions against her based on intransigence because (1) the plain language of RCW 4.56.100 does not require judgment creditors to enter a satisfaction of judgment, and she…”

Andrews Mech., Inc. v. Aaron Lowe (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Nevertheless, his appeal centers around whether, under RCW 4.56.100, he satisfied the judgment when he paid $1,660 on May 19, 2015.”

Maybee v. Machart, 739 P.2d 122 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See RCW 4.56.100. On October 18, a judgment was entered in Superior Court, awarding Mr.”

Kittitas Cnty. v. Sky Allphin (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “79, which included prejudgment interest, into the registry of the court in accordance with RCW 4.56.100. Mr. Allphin did not withdraw the funds from the court’s registry.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.100(1) — 6 cases

Lindsay v. Pac. Topsoils, Inc., 120 P.3d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Lindsay in exchange for entry of a full satisfaction of judgment for this amount per RCW 4.56.100(1).” *677 ¶7 The next day PTI filed a motion requesting the trial court declare that PTI had paid the judgment for Lindsay in full.”

James W. Aaseby et ux v. William Vue (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Miller satisfied the judgment in full under RCW 4.56.100, the judgment was discharged and Mr.”

Andrews Mech., Inc. v. Aaron Lowe (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Nevertheless, his appeal centers around whether, under RCW 4.56.100, he satisfied the judgment when he paid $1,660 on May 19, 2015.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.100(3) — 1 case

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.