Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.13
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in RCW 6.13.080, the homestead is exempt from attachment and from execution or forced sale for the debts of the owner up to the amount specified in RCW 6.13.030.
(2) In a bankruptcy case, the debtor's exemption shall be determined on the date the bankruptcy petition is filed. If the value of the debtor's interest in homestead property on the petition date is less than or equal to the amount that can be exempted under RCW 6.13.030, then the debtor's entire interest in the property, including the debtor's right to possession and interests of no monetary value, is exempt. Any appreciation in the value of the debtor's exempt interest in the property during the bankruptcy case is also exempt, even if in excess of the amounts in RCW 6.13.030(1).
(3) The proceeds of the voluntary sale of the homestead in good faith for the purpose of acquiring a new homestead, and proceeds from insurance covering destruction of homestead property held for use in restoring or replacing the homestead property, up to the amount specified in RCW 6.13.030, shall likewise be exempt for one year from receipt, and also such new homestead acquired with such proceeds.
(4) Every homestead created under this chapter is presumed to be valid to the extent of all the property claimed exempt, until the validity thereof is contested in a court of general jurisdiction in the county or district in which the homestead is situated.
[ 2021 c 290 s 5; 1987 c 442 s 207; 1981 c 329 s 13; 1945 c 196 s 2; 1927 c 193 s 2; 1895 c 64 s 4; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 532. Formerly RCW 6.12.090.]

Notes:

Findings—Effective date—2021 c 290: See notes following RCW 6.13.010.
Severability—1981 c 329: See note following RCW 6.21.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Long, 493 P.3d 94 (Wash. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Long, 493 P.3d 94 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 11× “” Former RCW 6.13.030(2). Here, we must determine whether the homestead act applies and whether any violation occurred.”
In re Good, 588 B.R. 573 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 13× “2 I construed the Trustee's response to the Motion to Disburse in part as a motion for stay pending appeal and in part as a substantive objection to disbursement based on the requirements of RCW 6.13.070(1). I subsequently granted stay pending appeal and took the substantive…”
Tellevik v. Real Prop. in Pierce Cty., 921 P.2d 1088 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “United States ; [2] and a violation of his homestead rights under Washington Constitution Article XIX, section 1, and RCW 6.13.070(1). He asserted, in the course of arguing his excessive fines claim, that the trial court was required to conduct "a proportionality-type analysis.”
Tellevik v. Real Prop. Known as 6717 100th Street S.W., 83 Wash. App. 366 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “United States; 2 and a violation of his homestead rights under Washington Constitution article XIX, section *370 1, and RCW 6.13.070(1). He asserted, in the course of arguing his excessive fines claim, that the trial court was required to conduct "a proportionality-type analysis.”
Fed. Intermediate Credit Bank of Spokane v. O/S SABLEFISH, 758 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 5× “090 (now codified as RCW 6.13.070) exempt from execution except as provided by statute (RCW 6.”
Casterline v. Roberts, 284 P.3d 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶27 Under RCW 6.13.070, the homestead is automatically exempt from execution on judgments against the homestead’s owner in an amount up to $125,000.”
Debra Wilson v. James Rigby, 909 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 2018). “” Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.070 . Moreover, nothing in Washington’s homestead exemption statute tethers the homestead exemption amount to the bankruptcy filing date.”
In Re the Marriage of Foley, 930 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Foley equalize the distribution by refinancing or selling the home was well within the court’s discretion.”
Household Fin. Indus. Loan Co. v. Upton, 102 Wash. App. 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The Uptons moved for revision of the commissioner’s order, contending that they were entitled to the funds under Washington’s homestead exemption, RCW 6.13.070. A superior court judge reversed the commissioner’s ruling.”
Nw. Cascade, Inc. v. Unique Constr. Inc., 351 P.3d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “) RCW 6.13.070 states in part: [T]he homestead is exempt from attachment and from execution or forced sale for the debts of the owner up to [$125,000].”
In re the Bankr. Petition of Wieber, 347 P.3d 41 (Wash. 2015). “Property included in the homestead must be actually intended or used as the principal home for the owner.”
Viewcrest Condo. Ass'n, Res. v. Brenda L. Robertson, App., 387 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “15 RCW 6.13.070. 16 RCW 6.13.080(6) (“The homestead exemption is not available against [a] forced sale in satisfaction of judgments obtained .”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.070(1) — 16 cases
In re Good, 588 B.R. 573 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “2 I construed the Trustee's response to the Motion to Disburse in part as a motion for stay pending appeal and in part as a substantive objection to disbursement based on the requirements of RCW 6.13.070(1). I subsequently granted stay pending appeal and took the substantive…”
Tellevik v. Real Prop. in Pierce Cty., 921 P.2d 1088 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “United States ; [2] and a violation of his homestead rights under Washington Constitution Article XIX, section 1, and RCW 6.13.070(1). He asserted, in the course of arguing his excessive fines claim, that the trial court was required to conduct "a proportionality-type analysis.”
Tellevik v. Real Prop. Known as 6717 100th Street S.W., 83 Wash. App. 366 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “United States; 2 and a violation of his homestead rights under Washington Constitution article XIX, section *370 1, and RCW 6.13.070(1). He asserted, in the course of arguing his excessive fines claim, that the trial court was required to conduct "a proportionality-type analysis.”
In re the Bankr. Petition of Wieber, 347 P.3d 41 (Wash. 2015). “Property included in the homestead must be actually intended or used as the principal home for the owner.”
Household Fin. Indus. Loan Co. v. Upton, 102 Wash. App. 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The Uptons moved for revision of the commissioner’s order, contending that they were entitled to the funds under Washington’s homestead exemption, RCW 6.13.070. A superior court judge reversed the commissioner’s ruling.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.070(2) — 2 cases
City of Seattle v. Long, 493 P.3d 94 (Wash. 2021). “” Former RCW 6.13.030(2). Here, we must determine whether the homestead act applies and whether any violation occurred.”
Rebecca E Wolfe (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.070(3) — 3 cases
Rebecca E Wolfe (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2023).
Rebecca E Wolfe (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2025).
In re: Randolph Neil Chapman & Sheryl E. Chapman, Debtors. (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.070(4) — 1 case
Rebecca E Wolfe (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2023).
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.