Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.21

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Upon the return of any sale of real estate, the clerk: (a) Shall enter the cause, on which the execution or order of sale issued, by its title, on the motion docket, and mark opposite the same: "Sale of land for confirmation"; (b) shall mail notice of the filing of the return of sale to all parties who have entered a written notice of appearance in the action and who have not had an order of default entered against them; (c) shall file proof of such mailing in the action; (d) shall apply the proceeds of the sale returned by the sheriff, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to satisfaction of the judgment, including interest as provided in the judgment, and shall pay any excess proceeds as provided in subsection (5) of this section by direction of court order; and (e) upon confirmation of the sale, shall deliver the original certificate of sale to the purchaser.
(2) The judgment creditor or successful purchaser at the sheriff's sale is entitled to an order confirming the sale at any time after twenty days have elapsed from the mailing of the notice of the filing of the sheriff's return, on motion with notice given to all parties who have entered a written notice of appearance in the action and who have not had an order of default entered against them, unless the judgment debtor, or in case of the judgment debtor's death, the representative, or any nondefaulting party to whom notice was sent shall file objections to confirmation with the clerk within twenty days after the mailing of the notice of the filing of such return.
(3) If objections to confirmation are filed, the court shall nevertheless allow the order confirming the sale, unless on the hearing of the motion, it shall satisfactorily appear that there were substantial irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale, to the probable loss or injury of the party objecting. In the latter case, the court shall disallow the motion and direct that the property be resold, in whole or in part, as the case may be, as upon an execution received as of that date.
(4) Upon a resale, the bid of the purchaser at the former sale shall be deemed to be renewed and continue in force, and no bid shall be taken, except for a greater amount. If on resale the property sells for a greater amount to any person other than the former purchaser, the clerk shall first repay to the former purchaser out of the proceeds of the resale the amount of the former purchaser's bid together with interest as is provided in the judgment.
(5)(a) If, after confirmation of the sale and the judgment is satisfied, there are any proceeds of the sale remaining, the clerk shall pay such proceeds, as provided for in (b) of this subsection, to all interests in, or liens against, the property eliminated by sale under this section in the order of priority that the interest, lien, or claim attached to the property, as determined by the court. Any remaining proceeds shall be paid to the judgment debtor, or the judgment debtor's representative, as the case may be, before the order is made upon the motion to confirm the sale only if the party files with the clerk a waiver of all objections made or to be made to the proceedings concerning the sale; otherwise, the excess proceeds shall remain in the custody of the clerk until the sale of the property has been disposed of.
(b) Anyone seeking disbursement of surplus funds shall file a motion requesting disbursement in the superior court for the county in which the surplus funds are deposited. Notice of the motion shall be served upon or mailed to all persons who had an interest in the property at the time of sale, and any other party who has entered an appearance in the proceeding, not less than twenty days prior to the hearing of the motion. The clerk shall not disburse such remaining proceeds except upon order of the superior court of such county.
(6) The purchaser shall file the original certificate of sale for record with the recording officer in the county in which the property is located.
[ 2014 c 107 s 1; 1994 c 185 s 3; 1987 c 442 s 611; 1984 c 276 s 3; 1981 c 329 s 3; 1899 c 53 s 6; RRS s 591. Prior: 1897 c 50 s 14; Code 1881 s 367; 1877 p 79 s 370; 1869 p 95 s 363; 1854 p 182 s 266. Formerly RCW 6.24.100.]

Notes:

Application—1984 c 276: See note following RCW 6.21.020.
Severability—1981 c 329: See note following RCW 6.21.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Hazel v. Van Beek
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hazel v. Van Beek (1998) wash · cites it 12× “Krutz analyzed a precursor of RCW 6.21.110, and the substantive portions of the former law are comparable to the current statute: 1.”
Hazel v. Van Beek (1998) wash · cites it 12× “Krutz analyzed a precursor of RCW 6.21.110, and the substantive portions of the former law are comparable to the current statute: "1.”
Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apartment Owners v. Parsons (2014) wash · cites it 12× “RCW 6.21.110 governs the confirmation of sales of real estate.”
Camp Finance, LLC v. Brazington (2006) washctapp · cites it 5× “RCW 6.21.110. The Brazingtons respond that confirmation by the court is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a sheriff's deed.”
Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apartment Owners v. Parsons (2013) washctapp · cites it 3× “100(1) (1987), recodified as RCW 6.21.110(2). RCW 6.21.110(2). 102 Wn.”
Camp Finance, L.L.C. v. Brazington (2006) washctapp · cites it 5× “RCW 6.21.110. The Brazingtons respond that confirmation by the court is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a sheriff’s deed.”
Mueller v. Miller (1996) washctapp “A trial court must confirm a sheriffs sale pursuant to *248 RCW 6.21.110. "Confirmation is an essential procedural step in completion of an execution sale.”
Hazel v. Van Beek (1997) washctapp · cites it 7× “RCW 6.21.110(2) provides in relevant part: The judgment creditor or successful purchaser at the sheriffs sale is entitled to an order confirming the sale at any time after twenty days have elapsed from the mailing of the notice of the filing of the sheriff’s return .”
Ten Bridges, Llc, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Teresia Guandai, Respondent/cross-appellant (2020) washctapp · cites it 7× “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
Carlyle Condominium Owners Association v. Yukiko Asano (2020) washctapp · cites it 7× “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apt. Owners v. Parsons (2014) wash · cites it 8× “RCW 6.21.110 governs the confirmation of sales of real estate.”
Umpqua Bank v. Ten Bridges (2020) washctapp · cites it 4× “79855-3-I/3 disburse in accordance with RCW 6.21.110(5).1 The next month, Bloxom asserted a lien of $111,330.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(1) — 2 cases
Ten Bridges, Llc, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Teresia Guandai, Respondent/cross-appellant (2020) washctapp “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
Carlyle Condominium Owners Association v. Yukiko Asano (2020) washctapp “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(1)(b) — 2 cases
Camp Finance, LLC v. Brazington (2006) washctapp “RCW 6.21.110. The Brazingtons respond that confirmation by the court is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a sheriff's deed.”
Joseph Gavin Morgan, V. Pierce County (2024) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(2) — 11 cases
Hazel v. Van Beek (1998) wash “Krutz analyzed a precursor of RCW 6.21.110, and the substantive portions of the former law are comparable to the current statute: 1.”
Hazel v. Van Beek (1998) wash “Krutz analyzed a precursor of RCW 6.21.110, and the substantive portions of the former law are comparable to the current statute: "1.”
Camp Finance, LLC v. Brazington (2006) washctapp “RCW 6.21.110. The Brazingtons respond that confirmation by the court is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a sheriff's deed.”
Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apartment Owners v. Parsons (2014) wash “RCW 6.21.110 governs the confirmation of sales of real estate.”
Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apartment Owners v. Parsons (2013) washctapp “100(1) (1987), recodified as RCW 6.21.110(2). RCW 6.21.110(2). 102 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(3) — 8 cases
Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apartment Owners v. Parsons (2013) washctapp “100(1) (1987), recodified as RCW 6.21.110(2). RCW 6.21.110(2). 102 Wn.”
Hazel v. Van Beek (1997) washctapp “RCW 6.21.110(2) provides in relevant part: The judgment creditor or successful purchaser at the sheriffs sale is entitled to an order confirming the sale at any time after twenty days have elapsed from the mailing of the notice of the filing of the sheriff’s return .”
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., V. John E. Erickson & Shelley A. Erickson (2023) washctapp
Huy Ying Chen v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank (2018) washctapp
U.s. Bank National Association, V. Melissa Huelsman (2025) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(5) — 1 case
Umpqua Bank v. Ten Bridges (2020) washctapp “79855-3-I/3 disburse in accordance with RCW 6.21.110(5).1 The next month, Bloxom asserted a lien of $111,330.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(5)(a) — 2 cases
Ten Bridges, Llc, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Teresia Guandai, Respondent/cross-appellant (2020) washctapp “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
Carlyle Condominium Owners Association v. Yukiko Asano (2020) washctapp “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(5)(b) — 3 cases
Umpqua Bank v. Ten Bridges (2020) washctapp “79855-3-I/3 disburse in accordance with RCW 6.21.110(5).1 The next month, Bloxom asserted a lien of $111,330.”
Ten Bridges, Llc, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Teresia Guandai, Respondent/cross-appellant (2020) washctapp “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
Carlyle Condominium Owners Association v. Yukiko Asano (2020) washctapp “80084-1-I & 80456-1-I/21 act because Guandai was entitled to the surplus funds under RCW 6.21.110 and every party with an interest in the funds had presented their arguments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.21.110(l)(b) — 1 case
Camp Finance, L.L.C. v. Brazington (2006) washctapp “RCW 6.21.110. The Brazingtons respond that confirmation by the court is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a sheriff’s deed.”
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.