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

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.120 (2026)

Judgment by default

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If on the date appointed in the summons the defendant does not appear or answer, the court shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint.
[ 1989 c 342 s 2; 1891 c 96 s 13; RRS s 822. FORMER PART OF SECTION: 1891 c 96 s 14 now codified as RCW 59.12.121.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 342: See RCW 59.18.911.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Sundholm v. Patch, 382 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sundholm v. Patch, 382 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1963). “” Thus, in an unlawful detainer action the trial court can either (1) enter a judgment in favor of the defendant by dismissing the action with prejudice, or (2) render a judgment in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to RCW 59.12.120 or RCW 59.12.170. In the instant case the…”
Snuffin v. Mayo, 494 P.2d 497 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “In an unlawful detainer action, the court may do only two things, either dismiss the action or grant judgment for plaintiff, pursuant to RCW 59.12.120 or RCW 59.12.170. Sundholm v.”
Brickum Inv. Co. v. Vernham Corp., 731 P.2d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 59.12.120. However, a trial court hearing an unlawful detainer action sits as a special statutory tribunal; its jurisdiction is limited to the primary issue of the right of possession, plus incidental issues such as restitution and rent, or damages.”
Calibrte Prop. Mgmt., Llc. v. Michael Nhye & Lacy Jolin (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The trial court found that Jolin "did not appear, and, thus, [was] in default.”
Landmark Props., Inc., V. Keith L. Arnold (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “See RCW 59.12.120 (“If on the date appointed in the summons the defendant does not appear or answer, the court shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). “Reynolds was decided prior to the 2019 amendments in which lawmakers 3 RCW 59.12.120 provides that “[i]f on the date appointed in the summons the defendant does not appear or answer, the court shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). “Reynolds was decided prior to the 2019 amendments in which lawmakers 3 RCW 59.12.120 provides that “[i]f on the date appointed in the summons the defendant does not appear or answer, the court shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint.”
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.