Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.165 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every final plat or short plat of a subdivision or short subdivision filed for record must contain a certificate giving a full and correct description of the lands divided as they appear on the plat or short plat, including a statement that the subdivision or short subdivision has been made with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the owner or owners.
If the plat or short plat is subject to a dedication, the certificate or a separate written instrument shall contain the dedication of all streets and other areas to the public, and individual or individuals, religious society or societies or to any corporation, public or private as shown on the plat or short plat and a waiver of all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may be occasioned to the adjacent land by the established construction, drainage and maintenance of said road. Said certificate or instrument of dedication shall be signed and acknowledged before a notary public by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands subdivided and recorded as part of the final plat.
Every plat and short plat containing a dedication filed for record must be accompanied by a title report confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on said plat is in the name of the owners signing the certificate or instrument of dedication.
An offer of dedication may include a waiver of right of direct access to any street from any property, and if the dedication is accepted, any such waiver is effective. Such waiver may be required by local authorities as a condition of approval. Roads not dedicated to the public must be clearly marked on the face of the plat. Any dedication, donation or grant as shown on the face of the plat shall be considered to all intents and purposes, as a quitclaim deed to the said donee or donees, grantee or grantees for his, her or their use for the purpose intended by the donors or grantors as aforesaid.
Notes:
Severability—1981 c 293: See note following RCW 58.17.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Howe v. Douglas Cnty., 43 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2002).
Howe v. Douglas Cnty., 43 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2002). “Before turning to whether this exculpatory clause violates the letter or underlying principles of the abrogation of sovereign immunity, we will consider the County's contention that this waiver is actually required or at least authorized by RCW 58.17.165. That statute says in…”
Howe v. Douglas Cnty., 146 Wash. 2d 183 (Wash. 2002). “Before turning to whether this exculpatory clause violates the letter or underlying principles of the abrogation of sovereign immunity, we will consider the County’s contention that this waiver is actually required or at least authorized by RCW 58.17.165. That statute says in…”
Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane, 954 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1998). “[4] In its first amended answer to Mission Springs' complaint, Spokane alleged the Mission Springs plat approval was illegal ab initio because it did not contain the signatures of all the owners of the plat pursuant to RCW 58.17.165. [5] The DeBills' signatures were not on the…”
Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wash. 2d 947 (Wash. 1998). “20 In its first amended answer to Mission Springs’ complaint, Spokane alleged the Mission Springs plat approval was illegal ab initio because it did not contain the signatures of all the owners of the plat pursuant to RCW 58.17.165. 21 The DeBills’ signatures were not on the…”
Halverson v. City of Bellevue, 704 P.2d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “" RCW 58.17.165 provides: Every final plat or short plat of a subdivision .”
MKKI, INC. v. Krueger, 145 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Any dedication, donation or grant as shown on the face of the plat shall be considered to all intents and purposes, as a quit claim deed to the said donee or donees, grantee or grantees for his, her or their use for the purpose intended by the donors or grantors as aforesaid.”
M.K.K.I., Inc. v. Krueger, 135 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Any dedication, donation or grant as shown on the face of the plat shall be considered to all intents and purposes, as a quit claim deed to the said donee or donees, grantee or grantees for his, her or their use for the purpose intended by the donors or grantors as aforesaid.”
Veradale Valley Citizens' Plan. Comm. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 588 P.2d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “RCW 58.17.165. 5 The interests of the property owners were actively represented before the Planning Commission and the Board.”
Harrison v. Stevens Cnty., 61 P.3d 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “130(1), clearly *131 alleges that the hearing examiner misinterpreted RCW 58.17.165 and the platting ordinance (RCW 36.”
Crystal Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Bothell, 343 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015). “The City’s interpretation of the Drainage Disclosure also runs counter to RCW 58.17.165, which provides that dedications “shown on the face of the plat shall be considered to all intents and purposes! ]as a quitclaim deed .”
Davidson v. Kitsap Cnty., 937 P.2d 1309 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “We also reject Davidson’s contention that Kitsap County failed to require a waiver of his right of access under RCW 58.17.165. Even if that statute did apply here, an assertion on which we express no opinion, the waiver language is permissive, not mandatory.”
Rainier View Court Homeowners v. Zenker, 238 P.3d 1217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 58.17.165; [2] M.K.K.I., Inc. v. Krueger, 135 Wash.”
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.