Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.010 (2026)
Forcible entry defined
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person is guilty of a forcible entry who either—(1) By breaking open windows, doors or other parts of a house, or by fraud, intimidation or stealth, or by any kind of violence or circumstance of terror, enters upon or into any real property; or—(2) Who, after entering peaceably upon real property, turns out by force, threats or menacing conduct the party in actual possession.
[ 1891 c 96 s 1; RRS s 810. Prior: 1890 p 73 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: FPA Crescent Assocs., LLC v. Jamie's LLC, 360 P.3d 934 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
FPA Crescent Assocs., LLC v. Jamie's LLC, 360 P.3d 934 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court found that Pendle-ton’s motion was procedurally unsupported because Pendle-ton did not provide a basis in the court rules or RCW 59.12.010 to grant the relief requested, or a basis to support a change in the court’s prior decision on the writ of res *672 titution.”
Lees v. Wardall, 554 P.2d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “These he outlines as: (1) forcible entry (RCW 59.12.010); (2) forcible detainer (RCW 59.”
Allen Watkins & Janis Clark, Appellant's V. Esa Mgmt. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “In its motion, ESA argued that appellants had abandoned the property and therefore were not in possession of the property as required to obtain relief under RCW 59.12.010 (forcible entry) and RCW 59.”
Allen Watkins & Janis Clark, Appellant's V. Esa Mgmt. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “In its motion, ESA argued that appellants had abandoned the property and therefore were not in possession of the property as required to obtain relief under RCW 59.12.010 (forcible entry) and RCW 59.”
Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Props. Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 59.12.010 (emphasis added). One is guilty of forcible detainer who “during the absence of the occupant of any real property, enters thereon, and who after demand made for the surrender thereof, refuses for the period of three days to surrender the same to such former…”
Btna, Llc, Res. v. Formosa Bros. Int'l Llc, Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Thereafter, BTNA commenced this commercial unlawful detainer action and sought a writ of restitution at a show cause hearing. Formosa Brothers moved to dismiss this action, arguing that the service of the three-day pre-litigation notice was improper.”
Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Props. Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 59.12.010 (emphasis added). One is guilty of forcible detainer who “during the absence of the occupant of any real property, enters thereon, and who after demand made for the surrender thereof, refuses for the period of three days to surrender the same to such former…”
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.