Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.84
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.185 (2026)

Prevailing party to receive expenses for opposing frivolous action or defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any civil action, the court having jurisdiction may, upon written findings by the judge that the action, counterclaim, cross-claim, third party claim, or defense was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause, require the nonprevailing party to pay the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including fees of attorneys, incurred in opposing such action, counterclaim, cross-claim, third party claim, or defense. This determination shall be made upon motion by the prevailing party after a voluntary or involuntary order of dismissal, order on summary judgment, final judgment after trial, or other final order terminating the action as to the prevailing party. The judge shall consider all evidence presented at the time of the motion to determine whether the position of the nonprevailing party was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause. In no event may such motion be filed more than thirty days after entry of the order.
The provisions of this section apply unless otherwise specifically provided by statute.
[ 1991 c 70 s 1; 1987 c 212 s 201; 1983 c 127 s 1.]

Notes:

Administrative law, frivolous petitions for judicial review: RCW 34.05.598.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 413 cases (93 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Mark Hanna, et ux v. Allan Margitan, et ux, 373 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mark Hanna, et ux v. Allan Margitan, et ux, 373 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 25× “g the short plat, (4) the two 2002 private road easements in favor of Allan and Gina Margitan are ineffective because they lack a present intent to convey, (5) the Margitans violated the short plat by building their house outside the building area depicted on the short plat, and…”
Stiles v. Kearney, 277 P.3d 9 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 18× “Stiles and her attorney, Arleta Young, appeal, raising numerous procedural and substantive challenges to the trial court’s imposition of CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185 sanctions. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s sanction decisions.”
Biggs v. Vail, 876 P.2d 448 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 20× “It also awarded Vail $25,000 in attorney fees under the frivolous lawsuit statute, RCW 4.84.185. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.”
Wright v. Dave Johnson Ins. Inc., 275 P.3d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “¶13 After the trial court entered judgment, the Johnsons moved for an award of costs and attorney fees under RCW 4.84.185. The trial court found that Wright’s defenses and allegations in his counterclaim were “frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause,” and it awarded the…”
Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “51642-0-II both Robertson’s and John’s motions to dismiss, and (7) sanctions should not have been awarded to John and Robertson under CR 11 or RCW 4.84.185. Tatyana also (8) moved for sanctions on appeal, alleging that John’s appellate counsel has a conflict of interest and that…”
State v. Verharen, 969 P.2d 64 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 16× “We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the action and imposition of attorney fees under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185. We also award fees on appeal.”
State Ex Rel. Quick-Ruben v. Verharen, 969 P.2d 64 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 16× “We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the action and imposition of attorney fees under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185. We also award fees on appeal.”
Eller v. East Sprague Motors & R.V.'s, Inc., 159 Wash. App. 180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 22× “DeWitt under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185 but nonetheless declined to award them, on a record that suggests the applicable legal standards were not applied and where an award under RCW 4.”
Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wash. App. 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “The court denied the request for a continuance and dismissed his complaint.”
Skimming v. Boxer, 82 P.3d 707 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “The court denied the request for a continuance and dismissed his complaint.”
Biggs v. Vail, 830 P.2d 350 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 10× “Facts of Case The primary issue in this case is whether attorneys' fees may be awarded pursuant to the frivolous lawsuit statute (RCW 4.84.185) when some, but not all, of the claims for relief 1 in a pleading are frivolous.”
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. City of Port Angeles, 304 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “The Cities also asked the trial court to sanction Kailin under CR 11 and to award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defending a frivolous suit under RCW 4.84.185. On June 10, Kailin moved to amend the complaint to request a declaration that the Cities’ fluorides…”
Show all 413 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.