Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020 (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 subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court has been or may be filed or rendered, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may have an execution, garnishment, or other legal process issued for the collection or enforcement of the judgment at any time within 10 years from entry of the judgment or the filing of the judgment in this state.
(2) After July 23, 1989, a party who obtains a judgment or order of a court or an administrative order entered as defined in RCW 74.20A.020(6) for accrued child support, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may have an execution, garnishment, or other legal process issued upon that judgment or order at any time within 10 years of the 18th birthday of the youngest child named in the order for whom support is ordered.
(3) After June 9, 1994, a party in whose favor a judgment has been filed as a foreign judgment or rendered pursuant to subsection (1) or (4) of this section, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may, within 90 days before the expiration of the original 10-year period, apply to the court that rendered the judgment or to the court where the judgment was filed as a foreign judgment for an order granting an additional 10 years during which an execution, garnishment, or other legal process may be issued. If a district court judgment of this state is transcribed to a superior court of this state, the original district court judgment shall not be extended and any petition under this section to extend the judgment that has been transcribed to superior court shall be filed in the superior court within 90 days before the expiration of the 10-year period of the date the transcript of the district court judgment was filed in the superior court of this state. The petitioner shall pay to the court a filing fee equal to the filing fee for filing the first or initial paper in a civil action in the court, except in the case of district court judgments transcribed to superior court, where the filing fee shall be the fee for filing the first or initial paper in a civil action in the superior court where the judgment was transcribed. The order granting the application shall contain an updated judgment summary as provided in RCW 4.64.030. The filing fee required under this subsection shall be included in the judgment summary and shall be a recoverable cost. The application shall be granted as a matter of right, subject to review only for timeliness, factual issues of full or partial satisfaction, or errors in calculating the judgment summary amounts.
(4)(a) A party who obtains a judgment or order for restitution pursuant to a criminal judgment and sentence, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may execute, garnish, and/or have legal process issued upon the judgment or order any time within 10 years subsequent to the entry of the judgment and sentence or 10 years following the offender's release from total confinement as provided in chapter 9.94A RCW. The clerk of [the] superior court, or a party designated by the clerk, may seek extension under subsection (3) of this section for purposes of collection as allowed under RCW 36.18.190, provided that no filing fee shall be required.
(b) A party who obtains a judgment or order for court-ordered legal financial obligations other than restitution, pursuant to a criminal judgment and sentence, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may execute, garnish, and have legal process issued upon the judgment or order any time within 10 years subsequent to the entry of the judgment and sentence or 10 years following the offender's release from total confinement as provided in chapter 9.94A RCW. The clerk of [the] superior court, or a party designated by the clerk, may seek extension under subsection (3) of this section for purposes of collection as allowed under RCW 36.18.190, only if the court finds that the offender has the current or likely future ability to pay the nonrestitution legal financial obligations. A person does not have the current ability to pay if the person is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3). No filing fee shall be required for filing a petition for an extension pursuant to this subsection (4)(b).
(5) "Court" as used in this section includes but is not limited to the United States supreme court, the United States courts of appeals, the United States district courts, the United States bankruptcy courts, the Washington state supreme court, the court of appeals of the state of Washington, superior courts and district courts of the counties of the state of Washington, and courts of other states and jurisdictions from which judgment has been filed in this state under chapter 6.36 or * 6.40 RCW.
(6) The perfection of any judgment lien and the priority of that judgment lien on property as established by RCW 6.13.090 and chapter 4.56 RCW is not altered by the extension of the judgment pursuant to the provisions of this section and the lien remains in full force and effect and does not have to be rerecorded after it is extended. Continued perfection of a judgment that has been transcribed to other counties and perfected in those counties may be accomplished after extension of the judgment by filing with the clerk of the other counties where the judgment has been filed either a certified copy of the order extending the judgment or a certified copy of the docket of the matter where the judgment was extended.
(7) Except as ordered in RCW 4.16.020 (2) or (3), chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW, no judgment is enforceable for a period exceeding 20 years from the date of entry in the originating court. Nothing in this section may be interpreted to extend the expiration date of a foreign judgment beyond the expiration date under the laws of the jurisdiction where the judgment originated.
(8) The chapter 261, Laws of 2002 amendments to this section apply to all judgments currently in effect on June 13, 2002, to all judgments extended after June 9, 1994, unless the judgment has been satisfied, vacated, and/or quashed, and to all judgments filed or rendered, or both, after June 13, 2002.
[ 2022 c 260 s 5; 2002 c 261 s 1; 1997 c 121 s 1; 1995 c 231 s 4; 1994 c 189 s 1; 1989 c 360 s 3; 1987 c 442 s 402; 1980 c 105 s 4; 1971 c 81 s 26; 1929 c 25 s 2; RRS s 510. Prior: 1888 p 94 s 1; Code 1881 s 325; 1877 p 67 s 328; 1869 p 79 s 320; 1854 p 175 s 242. Formerly RCW 6.04.010.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. CR 58(b), 62(a), and 69(a); JCR 54.
*Reviser's note: Chapter 6.40 RCW was repealed in its entirety by chapter 363, Laws of 2009. Later enactment, see chapter 6.40A RCW.
Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Application—1980 c 105: See note following RCW 4.16.020.
Entry of judgment: RCW 6.01.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 160 Wash. 2d 93 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 160 Wash. 2d 93 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 34× “¶1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020, which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 156 P.3d 858 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 35× “¶ 1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020 which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 120 P.3d 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16× “In 1996, RCW 6.17.020 permitted judgment creditors to extend the time for expiration of a judgment: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
State v. Morgan, 107 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 24× “Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively extend a judgment entered *156 prior to June 9,1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
State v. Morgan, 26 P.3d 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 24× “Morgan appealed. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively *968 extend a judgment entered prior to June 9, 1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
Hazel v. Van Beek, 135 Wash. 2d 45 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 10× “Hazel’s objection to Fogle’s Garage rests primarily upon her reading of RCW 6.17.020(1), which states: Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
Tcap Corp. v. Gervin, 185 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 14× “RCW 6.17.020(1) ("[T]he party in whose favor a judgment of a court has been or may be filed or rendered .”
Hazel v. Van Beek, 954 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 10× “Hazel's objection to Fogle's Garage rests primarily upon her reading of RCW 6.17.020(1), which states: Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
Summers v. Dep't of Revenue for State, 14 P.3d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “210 [2] , and *904 RCW 6.17.020. Under these statutes, the lien attaches to all real estate of the judgment debtor and runs for a period not to exceed ten years from the date the judgment was entered, unless the judgment is extended pursuant to RCW 6.”
Summers v. Dep't of Revenue, 104 Wash. App. 87 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “210 2 , and RCW 6.17.020. Under these statutes, the lien attaches to all real estate of the judgment debtor and runs for a period not to exceed 10 years from the date the judgment was entered, unless the judgment is extended pursuant to RCW 6.”
TCAP Corp. v. Gervin, 163 Wash. 2d 645 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 13× “¶2 We hold a registered foreign judgment in Washington expires, and therefore becomes unenforceable, under RCW 6.17.020(7) 1 when the underlying foreign judgment expires.”
Bell v. Heflin, 383 P.3d 1031 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 4× “This supports finding that Washington’s identical statute is not a “remedy” and is therefore not governed by the remedies section of the UIFSA choice of law provision. ¶10 The other option, which Bell and amicus advocate for, is that RCW 4.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(1) — 32 cases
Hazel v. Van Beek, 135 Wash. 2d 45 (Wash. 1998). “Hazel’s objection to Fogle’s Garage rests primarily upon her reading of RCW 6.17.020(1), which states: Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
Hazel v. Van Beek, 954 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1998). “Hazel's objection to Fogle's Garage rests primarily upon her reading of RCW 6.17.020(1), which states: Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002).
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 160 Wash. 2d 93 (Wash. 2007). “¶1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020, which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 156 P.3d 858 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020 which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(1989) — 1 case
SESSOM v. Mentor, 229 P.3d 843 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(2) — 10 cases
Bell v. Heflin, 383 P.3d 1031 (Wash. 2016). “This supports finding that Washington’s identical statute is not a “remedy” and is therefore not governed by the remedies section of the UIFSA choice of law provision. ¶10 The other option, which Bell and amicus advocate for, is that RCW 4.”
State v. Morgan, 107 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively extend a judgment entered *156 prior to June 9,1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
State v. Morgan, 26 P.3d 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Morgan appealed. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively *968 extend a judgment entered prior to June 9, 1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
Krueger v. Tippett, 155 Wash. App. 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Krueger v. Tippett, 229 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(3) — 38 cases
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 160 Wash. 2d 93 (Wash. 2007). “¶1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020, which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 156 P.3d 858 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020 which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
State v. Morgan, 107 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively extend a judgment entered *156 prior to June 9,1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
State v. Morgan, 26 P.3d 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Morgan appealed. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively *968 extend a judgment entered prior to June 9, 1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 120 P.3d 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “In 1996, RCW 6.17.020 permitted judgment creditors to extend the time for expiration of a judgment: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(3)(1997) — 1 case
SESSOM v. Mentor, 229 P.3d 843 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(4) — 8 cases
State v. Morgan, 107 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively extend a judgment entered *156 prior to June 9,1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
State v. Morgan, 26 P.3d 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Morgan appealed. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction and Retroactivity This first-time issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively *968 extend a judgment entered prior to June 9, 1994, the effective date of RCW 6.”
In Re Brady, 224 P.3d 842 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Gossage, 138 Wash. App. 298 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Brady, 154 Wash. App. 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(4)(a) — 1 case
Granite Capital Grp., Inc., Et Ano, V. Karen Joan Ojiru (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(7) — 9 cases
Tcap Corp. v. Gervin, 185 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 6.17.020(1) ("[T]he party in whose favor a judgment of a court has been or may be filed or rendered .”
TCAP Corp. v. Gervin, 163 Wash. 2d 645 (Wash. 2008). “¶2 We hold a registered foreign judgment in Washington expires, and therefore becomes unenforceable, under RCW 6.17.020(7) 1 when the underlying foreign judgment expires.”
Krueger v. Tippett, 229 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Krueger v. Tippett, 155 Wash. App. 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State Of Washington v. Ted James Grimes (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.17.020(8) — 5 cases
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 120 P.3d 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “In 1996, RCW 6.17.020 permitted judgment creditors to extend the time for expiration of a judgment: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court of record of this state or a district court of this state…”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 160 Wash. 2d 93 (Wash. 2007). “¶1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020, which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
Am. Disc. Corp. v. Shepherd, 156 P.3d 858 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 1 This is a case of statutory interpretation and involves RCW 6.17.020 which establishes authority for extension of judgments.”
Tcap Corp. v. Gervin, 185 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 6.17.020(1) ("[T]he party in whose favor a judgment of a court has been or may be filed or rendered .”
TCAP Corp. v. Gervin, 163 Wash. 2d 645 (Wash. 2008). “¶2 We hold a registered foreign judgment in Washington expires, and therefore becomes unenforceable, under RCW 6.17.020(7) 1 when the underlying foreign judgment expires.”
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.