Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.020 (2026)

Forcible detainer 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 detainer who either—(1) By force, or by menaces and threats of violence, unlawfully holds and keeps the possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peaceably or otherwise; or—(2) Who in the nighttime, or 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 occupant. The occupant of real property within the meaning of this subdivision is one who for the five days next preceding such unlawful entry was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of such real property.

[ 1891 c 96 s 2; RRS s 811. Prior: 1890 p 73 s 2.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Lees v. Wardall, 554 P.2d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lees v. Wardall, 554 P.2d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “010); (2) forcible detainer (RCW 59.12.020); (3) unlawful entry and detainer (RCW 59.”

Priestley Mining & Milling Co. v. Lenox Mining & Dev. Co., 247 P.2d 688 (Wash. 1952). “, § 811(2), and RCW 59.12.020(2)]: “Every person is guilty of a forcible detainer .”

Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Props. Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “” RCW 59.12.020. To be an “occupant,” a person must be in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of the real property “for the five days next preceding such unlawful entry.”

Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Props. Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “” RCW 59.12.020. To be an “occupant,” a person must be in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of the real property “for the five days next preceding such unlawful entry.”

Allen Watkins & Janis Clark, Appellant's V. Esa Mgmt. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “010 (forcible entry) and RCW 59.12.020 (forcible detainer). To support its abandonment argument, ESA attached to its motion a declaration of a general manager of the Extended Stay of America property asserting that appellants -2- No.”

Joseph Tafoya v. Sharon Hunter (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “In its written findings, the court found Sharon "took possession of the described premises as a guest of the Plaintiffs" and "is guilty of forcible and unlawful detainer pursuant to RCW 59.12.020 and RCW 59.12.030." The court also found her "liable to Plaintiff for fair market…”

Pomaikai, Llc, Res. v. Boris Povzner, Emilia Lyubimova, Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The trial court concluded the appellants were guilty of forcible and unlawful detainer under RCW 59.12.020 and RCW 59.12.030(1) and directed the Clerk of Court to issue a writ of restitution to restore possession of the property to Pomaikai.”

Leonard Carpenter Dewitt v. Kevin William Hannan (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “See RCW 59.12.020, .060. As noted, Dewitt has never claimed that he was a tenant at the Tacoma house and such a claim would be inconsistent with his CIR claim.”

Aeschliman v. Chryst, 313 P.2d 367 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of respondent upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, based upon stipulated facts, in an action for forcible detainer instituted pursuant to RCW 59.12.020 (2). The parties are farmers who for several years have occupied…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.020(2) — 1 case

Priestley Mining & Milling Co. v. Lenox Mining & Dev. Co., 247 P.2d 688 (Wash. 1952). “, § 811(2), and RCW 59.12.020(2)]: “Every person is guilty of a forcible detainer .”

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.