Wash. Rev. Code » Title 58 · Chapter 58.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.200 (2026)

Injunctive action to restrain subdivision, sale, transfer of land where final plat not filed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any parcel of land is divided into five or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land and any person, firm or corporation or any agent of any of them sells or transfers, or offers or advertises for sale or transfer, any such lot, tract, or parcel without having a final plat of such subdivision filed for record, the prosecuting attorney shall commence an action to restrain and enjoin further subdivisions or sales, or transfers, or offers of sale or transfer and compel compliance with all provisions of this chapter. The costs of such action shall be taxed against the person, firm, corporation or agent selling or transferring the property.
[ 1969 ex.s. c 271 s 20.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2008 · leading case: HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 58.17.200 (providing that prosecuting attorney “shall commence an action to restrain and enjoin *488 further subdivisions or sales, or transfers, or offers of sale or transfer and compel compliance with all provisions of” chapter 58.”
Geonerco, Inc. v. Grand Ridge Props. IV, LLC, 146 Wash. App. 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “” RCW 58.17.200. But a specific exception to this statute exists in RCW 58.”
Busch v. Nervik, 687 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Finally, Busches sought damages against Jefferson County for losses suffered by reason of (1) the County Auditor's acceptance and recording of the Nervik-Busch deeds knowing that no final plat of Lazy C, Division II had ever been filed and made a matter of record; and (2) the…”
Lechelt v. City of Seattle, 650 P.2d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “The property owners, the Lechelts, appealed the exami *833 ner's recommendation to the King County Council which, after a hearing, found that the Lechelts had sold certain lots despite the lack of final plat approval and contrary to RCW 58.17.200. The council approved the…”
Geonerco, Inc. v. Grand Ridge Props. IV LLC, 191 P.3d 76 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “" RCW 58.17.200. But a specific exception to this statute exists in RCW 58.”
Sienkiewicz v. Smith, 633 P.2d 905 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “See RCW 58.17.200. 2 RCW 58.17.020 contains the following definitions: (1) "Subdivision" is the division of land into five or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale or lease and shall include all resubdivision of land.”
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 58.17.200 (providing that prosecuting attorney "shall commence an action to restrain and enjoin further subdivisions or sales, or transfers, or offers of sale or transfer and compel compliance with all provisions of chapter 58.”
Valley Quality Homes, Inc. v. Bodie, 763 P.2d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “VQH asserts this major subdivision is for state purposes a "subdivision" and subject to final platting before sale as required by RCW 58.17.200. 4 VQH relies on RCW 58.17-.”
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.