Wash. Rev. Code » Title 59 · Chapter 59.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The plaintiff in his or her complaint, which shall be in writing, must set forth the facts on which he or she seeks to recover, and describe the premises with reasonable certainty, and may set forth therein any circumstances of fraud, force or violence, which may have accompanied the forcible entry or forcible or unlawful detainer, and claim damages therefor, or compensation for the occupation of the premises, or both; in case the unlawful detainer charged be after default in the payment of rent, the complaint must state the amount of such rent. A summons must be issued as in other cases, returnable at a day designated therein, which shall not be less than seven nor more than thirty days from the date of service, except in cases where the publication of summons is necessary, in which case the court or judge thereof may order that the summons be made returnable at such time as may be deemed proper, and the summons shall specify the return day so fixed.
[ 2005 c 130 s 1; 1927 c 123 s 1; 1891 c 96 s 8; RRS s 817. Prior: 1890 p 75 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wash. 2d 365 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wash. 2d 365 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “Service by mail adds an additional day to the notice requirement; thus, a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer four days after the notice is properly posted and mailed.”
Christensen v. Ellsworth, 173 P.3d 228 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “Service by mail adds an additional day to the notice requirement; thus, a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer four days after the notice is properly posted and mailed.”
Canterwood Place L.P. v. Thande, 106 Wash. App. 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “first impression, we hold that the method of time computation set forth in Superior Court Civil Rule 6, providing that “[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation,”…”
Faciszewski v. Brown, 386 P.3d 711 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 59.12.070. Upon filing an unlawful detainer action, the landlord may request the court to issue a writ of restitution restoring the property to the landlord.”
Hall v. Feigenbaum, 319 P.3d 61 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “¶19 RCW 59.12.070 describes the requirements for the unlawful detainer summons and complaint.”
In re the Det. of Capello, 60 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Thande, 26 the issue was whether CR 6 applies to the computation of time for the return date on an unlawful detainer summons issued under RCW 59.12.070. Unlawful detainer proceedings are special proceedings within the meaning of CR 81.”
Amie Garrand, V Robin P. Cornett, 550 P.3d 64 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 59.12.070. To physically evict the tenant, a landlord must also move for a writ of restitution.”
Kelly v. Powell, 776 P.2d 996 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 59.12.070. Also, "in case the unlawful detainer charged be after default in the payment of rent, the complaint must state the amount of such rent.”
Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “9 In Canterwood, we applied CR 6(a) to compute the return date on an *563 unlawful detainer summons issued under former RCW 59.12.070. We applied CR 6(a) because, at the time of our decision, chapter 59.”
First Union Mgmt., Inc. v. Slack, 679 P.2d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “070 provides: The plaintiff in his complaint, which shall be in writing, must set forth the facts on which he seeks to recover, and describe the premises with reasonable certainty, and may set forth therein any circumstances of fraud, force or violence, which may have…”
Draper Mach. Works, Inc. v. Hagberg, 663 P.2d 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “Additionally, and decisively, the summons did not conform to RCW 59.12.070 specifications, but to CR 4, showing Draper did not seek the benefit of the expedited procedure of RCW 59.”
Philip D. Burgess & Linda L. Burgess, Res. v. Rowena Crossan, App., 358 P.3d 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because the statutory notice for these two items does not automatically terminate the tenancy, RCW 59.12.070 provides for forfeiture as a judgment provision when a landlord prevails on either of these grounds.”
Show all 37 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.