Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.020 (2026)
Notice of sale—Personal property
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Before the sale of personal property under execution, order of sale or decree, notice thereof shall be given as follows:
(1) The judgment creditor shall, not less than thirty days prior to the day of sale, cause a copy of the notice of sale to be transmitted both by regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the judgment debtor at the debtor's last known address, and by regular mail to the attorney of record for the judgment debtor, if any. The judgment creditor shall file an affidavit with the court showing compliance with the requirements of this subsection.
(2) The sheriff shall post typed or printed notice of the time and place of the sale in three public places in the county in which the sale is to take place, for a period of not less than four weeks prior to the day of sale.
[ 1988 c 231 s 14; 1987 c 442 s 602; 1984 c 276 s 1; 1981 c 329 s 1; 1935 c 35 s 1; RRS s 582. Prior: 1927 c 69 s 1; 1903 c 179 s 1; 1899 c 53 s 3; 1897 c 91 s 1. Formerly RCW 6.24.010.]
Notes:
Severability—1988 c 231: See note following RCW 6.01.050.
Severability—1981 c 329: "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." [ 1981 c 329 s 24.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1988–2011 · leading case: Tift v. Snohomish Cnty., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (W.D. Wash. 2011).
Tift v. Snohomish Cnty., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “Nor does plaintiff provide evidence that the sheriff failed to provide him notice of the sale pursuant to RCW 6.21.020. Rather, Deputy Giralmo declares that he logged each item taken from the residence, the items were kept in storage for 30 days, proper notice of sale was given,…”
Mueller v. Rupp, 761 P.2d 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “010 (amended in 1981 and 1984 and recodified as RCW 6.21.020 in 1987) was constitutionally suspect where the creditor knew of the alleged debtor's whereabouts and was in fact negotiating satisfaction of the claim.”
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.