Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.56

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.190

Lien of judgment

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The real estate of any judgment debtor, and such as the judgment debtor may acquire, not exempt by law, shall be held and bound to satisfy any judgment of the district court of the United States rendered in this state and any judgment of the supreme court, court of appeals, superior court, or district court of this state, and every such judgment shall be a lien thereupon to commence as provided in RCW 4.56.200 and to run for a period of not to exceed ten years from the day on which such judgment was entered unless the ten-year period is extended in accordance with RCW 6.17.020(3), or unless the judgment results from a criminal sentence for a crime that was committed on or after July 1, 2000, in which case the lien will remain in effect until the judgment is fully satisfied. As used in this chapter, real estate shall not include the vendor's interest under a real estate contract for judgments rendered after August 23, 1983. If a judgment debtor owns real estate, subject to execution, jointly or in common with any other person, the judgment shall be a lien on the interest of the defendant only.
Personal property of the judgment debtor shall be held only from the time it is actually levied upon.
[ 2011 c 106 s 4; 1994 c 189 s 3. Prior: 1987 c 442 s 1103; 1987 c 202 s 116; 1983 1st ex.s. c 45 s 5; 1980 c 105 s 3; 1971 c 81 s 16; 1929 c 60 s 1; RRS s 445; prior: 1893 c 42 s 9; Code 1881 s 321; 1869 p 78 s 317; 1860 p 51 s 234; 1857 p 11 s 15; 1854 p 175 s 240.]

Notes:

Finding—2011 c 106: See note following RCW 10.82.090.
Application—1987 c 442 s 1103: "The amendment of RCW 4.56.190 by this act applies only to judgments entered after July 26, 1987." [ 1987 c 442 s 1104.]
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Application—1980 c 105: See note following RCW 4.16.020.
Repeal and saving—1929 c 60: "That chapter XXVIII (28), sections 320, 321, 322, and chapter XXIX (29), sections 323 and 324, and section 753 of the Code of Washington Territory of 1881; an act entitled 'An Act relating to the filing and recording of transcripts of judgments rendered in this state by the district or circuit courts of the United States', approved February 19, 1890, Laws of 1889/90, pages 97 to 98; section 5 of chapter XXXVIII (38) of the Laws of 1891, pages 77 to 78; chapter LXXXIV (84) of the Laws of 1891, pages 165 to 166; chapter XLII (42) of the Laws of 1893 pages 65 to 67, and chapter XXXIX (39) of the Laws of 1897, pages 52 to 53, chapter XI of the Laws of 1897, page 10, (sections 445, 446, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462 and 463 of Remington's Compiled Statutes; sections 8111, 8112, 8113, 8114, 8115, 8116, 8117, 8118, 8119, 8120, 8121, 8125, 8126, 8163, 8164 and 8165 of Pierce's Code) are hereby repealed: PROVIDED, That such repeal shall not be construed as affecting any rights acquired or the validity of any act done or proceeding had or pending under the provisions of any of said acts repealed." [ 1929 c 60 s 9.]
Entry of judgments—Superior court—District court—Small claims: RCW 6.01.020.
Execution of judgments: RCW 6.17.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1952–2022 · leading case: Cascade Security Bank v. Butler
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cascade Security Bank v. Butler (1977) wash · cites it 4× “The issue here is whether the interest of a real estate contract purchaser constitutes "real estate" within the meaning of the judgment lien statutes, RCW 4.56.190 and 4.56.200. Those statutes provide: RCW 4.”
Mahalko v. Arctic Trading Co. (1983) wash · cites it 6× “While the Court of Appeals held judgment against a homesteader does not create a lien on the excess value of the homestead property, its application of the relation back doctrine depended upon just such a lien attaching to the real property as of the time of Mahalko's 1973…”
Mueller v. Miller (1996) washctapp · cites it 4× “Mueller contends that (1) the sheriffs sale was void because it occurred more than 10 years after the original judgment was entered; (2) the confirmation of the sheriffs sale could not cure the void sale; and (3) the writ ordering redemption did not validate the void sale.”
Hu Hyun Kim v. Lee (2001) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 4.56.190. A superior court judgment becomes a perfected lien against the judgment debtor’s real property from the time the judgment creditor records the judgment with the recording officer of the county where the property is located.”
Bank of America, NA v. Owens (2009) washctapp · cites it 5× “” 3 Indeed, RCW 4.56.190 and .200 are quite specific.”
4518 S. 256th, LLC v. Karen L. Gibbon, PS (2016) washctapp “Under that statute, a postsale claim for monetary damages “may not operate in any way to encumber or cloud the title to the property that was subject to the foreclosure sale, except to the extent that a judgment on the claim in favor of the borrower or grantor may, consistent…”
Hazel v. Van Beek (1998) wash · cites it 3× “See RCW 4.56.190 (“[Ejvery such judgment shall be a hen thereupon to commence as provided in RCW 4.”
Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Spokane v. O/S SABLEFISH (1989) wash · cites it 4× “The purchasers' final argument is that the judgment lien does not apply to them since RCW 4.56.190 states that only the land of the judgment debtor shall be held to satisfy a judgment.”
Hazel v. Van Beek (1998) wash · cites it 3× “See RCW 4.56.190 ("[E]very such judgment shall be a lien thereupon to commence as provided in RCW 4.”
Dennis G. Ott, P.S. v. Estate of Whitmire (2006) washctapp · cites it 5× “010, which was reduced to judgment under RCW 4.56.190, thereby giving him priority to the surplus funds under RCW 61.”
Kim v. Lee (2001) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 4.56.190. A superior court judgment becomes a perfected lien against the judgment *669 debtor's real property from the time the judgment creditor records the judgment with the recording officer of the county where the property is located.”
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Services, Inc. (2014) wash “not affect in any way the validity or finality of the foreclosure sale or a subsequent transfer of the property; (d) A borrower or grantor who files such a claim is prohibited from recording a lis pendens or any other document purporting to create a similar effect, related to…”
Show all 57 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.