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

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080 (2026)

Homestead exemption, when not available

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The homestead exemption is not available against an execution or forced sale in satisfaction of judgments obtained:
(1) On debts secured by mechanic's, laborer's, construction, maritime, automobile repair, material supplier's, or vendor's liens arising out of and against the particular property claimed as a homestead;
(2) On debts secured:
(a) By security agreements describing as collateral the property that is claimed as a homestead; or
(b) By mortgages or deeds of trust on the premises that have been executed and acknowledged by both spouses or both domestic partners or by any claimant not married or in a state registered domestic partnership. The execution and acknowledgment of a mortgage or deed of trust by a dependent who is not a spouse or domestic partner is not required;
(3) On one spouse's or one domestic partner's or the community's debts existing at the time of that spouse's or that domestic partner's bankruptcy filing where (a) bankruptcy is filed by both spouses or both domestic partners within a six-month period, other than in a joint case or a case in which their assets are jointly administered, and (b) the other spouse or other domestic partner exempts property from property of the estate under the bankruptcy exemption provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(d);
(4) On debts arising from a lawful court order or decree or administrative order establishing a child support obligation or obligation to pay maintenance;
(5) On debts owing to the state of Washington for recovery of medical assistance correctly paid on behalf of an individual consistent with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396p;
(6) On debts secured by a condominium, homeowners', or common interest community association's lien; or
(7) On debts owed for taxes collected under chapters 82.08, 82.12, and 82.14 RCW but not remitted to the department of revenue.
[ 2021 c 290 s 6; 2019 c 238 s 215; 2018 c 277 s 501; 2013 c 23 s 2; 2008 c 6 s 635; 2007 c 429 s 2; 2005 c 292 s 4; 1993 c 200 s 4. Prior: 1988 c 231 s 3; 1988 c 192 s 1; 1987 c 442 s 208; 1984 c 260 s 16; 1982 c 10 s 1; prior: 1981 c 304 s 17; 1981 c 149 s 1; 1909 c 44 s 1; 1895 c 64 s 5; RRS s 533. Formerly RCW 6.12.100.]

Notes:

Findings—Effective date—2021 c 290: See notes following RCW 6.13.010.
Effective date—2018 c 277: See RCW 64.90.910.
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Severability—1988 c 231: See note following RCW 6.01.050.
Severability—1982 c 10: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1982 c 10 s 19.]
Severability—1981 c 304: See note following RCW 26.16.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Fed. Intermediate Credit Bank of Spokane v. O/S SABLEFISH, 758 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Intermediate Credit Bank of Spokane v. O/S SABLEFISH, 758 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 8× “100; now codified as RCW 6.13.080)? Decision Issue One. Conclusion.”
Schermer v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 161 Wash. 2d 927 (Wash. 2007). “A court-ordered child support obligation is subject to specific statutory standards intended to reasonably relate a parent’s child support obligation to the parent’s income and ability to pay.”
In Re Dependency of Schermer, 169 P.3d 452 (Wash. 2007). “A court-ordered child support obligation is subject to specific statutory standards intended to reasonably relate a parent's child support obligation to the parent's income and ability to pay.”
City of Seattle v. Long, 493 P.3d 94 (Wash. 2021). “010 (1999), it cannot be simply towed by an agent of the state and attached as security for the cost of that tow.”
Boeing Employees' Credit Union v. Burns, 272 P.3d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “¶65 RCW 6.13.080 states that [t]he homestead exemption is not available against .”
Hartley v. Liberty Park Assocs., 774 P.2d 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “2 Judgment liens of the superior court for the county in which the real estate of the judgment debtor is situated commence from the time the judgment is entered.”
Viewcrest Condo. Ass'n, Res. v. Brenda L. Robertson, App., 387 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “080(6) of the Homestead Act, it would have simply restated that exemption, just as it has in the Horizontal Property Regimes Act: “Such lien is not subject to the ban against execution or forced sales of homesteads under RCW 6.13.080.” 25 But Viewcrest’s arguments are not…”
Household Fin. Indus. Loan Co. v. Upton, 102 Wash. App. 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “RCW 6.13.080 provides: The homestead exemption is not available against an execution or forced sale in satisfaction of judgments obtained [o]n debts secured (a) by security agreements describing as collateral the property that is claimed as a homestead or (b) by mortgages or…”
In Re the Marriage of Foley, 930 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 6.13.080. In 1894, our Supreme Court, in ruling on the division of the family home, stated in dicta that: *845 Philbrick v.”
Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “364(2) and RCW 6.13.080(6). 16 Because we hold that RCW 6.”
In Re Stone, 119 B.R. 222 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1990). · cites it 2× “There is no exception in the terms of this exemption for the claims of liens of unpaid vendors. Sharon Albright and Doris Hayes, in their respective cases, claim their residences exempt pursuant to the Washington state homestead law.”
In re the Bankr. Petition of Wieber, 347 P.3d 41 (Wash. 2015). “030), and limiting its application (RCW 6.13.080) do not expressly address this issue.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080(1) — 5 cases
City of Seattle v. Long, 493 P.3d 94 (Wash. 2021). “010 (1999), it cannot be simply towed by an agent of the state and attached as security for the cost of that tow.”
Hartley v. Liberty Park Assocs., 774 P.2d 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “2 Judgment liens of the superior court for the county in which the real estate of the judgment debtor is situated commence from the time the judgment is entered.”
Matter of Marriage of Wintermute, 855 P.2d 1186 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
In Re Goodale, 298 B.R. 886 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2003).
Charles E. Bradley, Jr. v. Brian Patrick Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080(2) — 9 cases
Boeing Employees' Credit Union v. Burns, 272 P.3d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶65 RCW 6.13.080 states that [t]he homestead exemption is not available against .”
Household Fin. Indus. Loan Co. v. Upton, 102 Wash. App. 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 6.13.080 provides: The homestead exemption is not available against an execution or forced sale in satisfaction of judgments obtained [o]n debts secured (a) by security agreements describing as collateral the property that is claimed as a homestead or (b) by mortgages or…”
Washington Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. McNaughton, 325 P.3d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
In Re Upton, 6 P.3d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Tr.'s Sale of Real Prop. of Brown, 250 P.3d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080(2)(a) — 1 case
Ioan Paunescu & Daniela Paunescu v. Gerhard Eckert (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080(2)(b) — 2 cases
Dynamic Funding, Llc v. Seawind Homeowners Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Linda Armstrong, V. Nadene Sammann (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080(4) — 2 cases
Schermer v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 161 Wash. 2d 927 (Wash. 2007). “A court-ordered child support obligation is subject to specific statutory standards intended to reasonably relate a parent’s child support obligation to the parent’s income and ability to pay.”
In Re Dependency of Schermer, 169 P.3d 452 (Wash. 2007). “A court-ordered child support obligation is subject to specific statutory standards intended to reasonably relate a parent's child support obligation to the parent's income and ability to pay.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.13.080(6) — 3 cases
Viewcrest Condo. Ass'n, Res. v. Brenda L. Robertson, App., 387 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “080(6) of the Homestead Act, it would have simply restated that exemption, just as it has in the Horizontal Property Regimes Act: “Such lien is not subject to the ban against execution or forced sales of homesteads under RCW 6.13.080.” 25 But Viewcrest’s arguments are not…”
Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “364(2) and RCW 6.13.080(6). 16 Because we hold that RCW 6.”
John J. Hadaller v. Mayfield Cove Estates Homeowners Assoc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
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.