Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.23
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.23.120 (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 subsection (4) of this section, during the period of redemption for any property that a person would be entitled to claim as a homestead, any licensed real estate broker within the county in which the property is located may nonexclusively list the property for sale whether or not there is a listing contract. If the property is not redeemed by the judgment debtor and a sheriff's deed is issued under RCW 6.21.120, then the property owner shall accept the highest current qualifying offer upon tender of full cash payment within two banking days after notice of the pending acceptance is received by the offeror. If timely tender is not made, such offer shall no longer be deemed to be current and the opportunity shall pass to the next highest current qualifying offer, if any. Notice of pending acceptance shall be given for the first highest current qualifying offer within five days after delivery of the sheriff's deed under RCW 6.21.120 and for each subsequent highest current qualifying offer within five days after the offer becoming the highest current qualifying offer. An offer is qualifying if the offer is made during the redemption period through a licensed real estate broker listing the property and is at least equal to the sum of: (a) One hundred twenty percent of the redemption amount determined under RCW 6.23.020 and (b) the normal commission of the real estate broker or agent handling the offer.
(2) The proceeds shall be divided at the time of closing with: (a) One hundred twenty percent of the redemption amount determined under RCW 6.23.020 paid to the property owner, (b) the real estate broker's or agent's normal commission paid, and (c) any excess paid to the judgment debtor.
(3) Notice, tender, payment, and closing shall be made through the real estate broker or agent handling the offer.
(4) This section shall not apply to mortgage or deed of trust foreclosures under chapter 61.12 or 61.24 RCW.
[ 2018 c 22 s 3; 1987 c 442 s 712; 1981 c 329 s 23. Formerly RCW 6.24.230.]

Notes:

Explanatory statement—2018 c 22: See note following RCW 1.20.051.
Severability—1981 c 329: See note following RCW 6.21.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2017 · leading case: Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 20× “Although the sheriff’s deed was void, Shires held an inchoate interest in the property at the time it sold the property to Glenn.”
P.H.T.S., LLC v. Vantage Capital, LLC, 345 P.3d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 19× “This offer is made pursuant to RCW 6.23.120. The supplementary terms, conditions and requirements contained in that statute are incorporated into this offer.”
Graham v. Findahl, 93 P.3d 977 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 13× “Because Graham’s offer contained additional terms that would have increased the burden that the redemption statute would otherwise have placed on Findahl, it was not a “qualifying” offer under RCW 6.23.120. The trial court therefore did not err by dismissing Graham’s claim on…”
Dynamic Funding, Llc v. Seawind Homeowners Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 24× “After USB refused the offer, Dynamic sought a court order mandating USB accept the offer under RCW 6.23.120. Dynamic appeals the superior court's order denying its motion.”
P.h.t.s., Llc, Resp. v. Vantage Capital, Llc, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 19× “This offer is made pursuant to RCW 6.23.120. The supplementary terms, conditions and requirements contained in that statute are incorporated into this offer.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.23.120(1) — 5 cases
Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Although the sheriff’s deed was void, Shires held an inchoate interest in the property at the time it sold the property to Glenn.”
P.H.T.S., LLC v. Vantage Capital, LLC, 345 P.3d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “This offer is made pursuant to RCW 6.23.120. The supplementary terms, conditions and requirements contained in that statute are incorporated into this offer.”
P.h.t.s., Llc, Resp. v. Vantage Capital, Llc, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “This offer is made pursuant to RCW 6.23.120. The supplementary terms, conditions and requirements contained in that statute are incorporated into this offer.”
Dynamic Funding, Llc v. Seawind Homeowners Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “After USB refused the offer, Dynamic sought a court order mandating USB accept the offer under RCW 6.23.120. Dynamic appeals the superior court's order denying its motion.”
Graham v. Findahl, 93 P.3d 977 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Because Graham’s offer contained additional terms that would have increased the burden that the redemption statute would otherwise have placed on Findahl, it was not a “qualifying” offer under RCW 6.23.120. The trial court therefore did not err by dismissing Graham’s claim on…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.23.120(2) — 3 cases
Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Although the sheriff’s deed was void, Shires held an inchoate interest in the property at the time it sold the property to Glenn.”
P.H.T.S., LLC v. Vantage Capital, LLC, 345 P.3d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “This offer is made pursuant to RCW 6.23.120. The supplementary terms, conditions and requirements contained in that statute are incorporated into this offer.”
P.h.t.s., Llc, Resp. v. Vantage Capital, Llc, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “This offer is made pursuant to RCW 6.23.120. The supplementary terms, conditions and requirements contained in that statute are incorporated into this offer.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.23.120(2)(c) — 1 case
Performance Constr., App/cross-resp v. David Keene, Resp/cross-app, 380 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Although the sheriff’s deed was void, Shires held an inchoate interest in the property at the time it sold the property to Glenn.”
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.