Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.25

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.25.030

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The writ of attachment may be issued by the court in which the action is pending on one or more of the following grounds:
(1) That the defendant is a foreign corporation; or
(2) That the defendant is not a resident of this state; or
(3) That the defendant conceals himself or herself so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him or her; or
(4) That the defendant has absconded or absented himself or herself from his or her usual place of abode in this state, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him or her; or
(5) That the defendant has removed or is about to remove any of his or her property from this state, with intent to delay or defraud his or her creditors; or
(6) That the defendant has assigned, secreted, or disposed of, or is about to assign, secrete, or dispose of, any of his or her property, with intent to delay or defraud his or her creditors; or
(7) That the defendant is about to convert his or her property, or a part thereof, into money, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his or her creditors; or
(8) That the defendant has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation for which the action is brought; or
(9) That the damages for which the action is brought are for injuries arising from the commission of some felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor.
[ 2023 c 102 s 7; 2011 c 336 s 147; 1987 c 442 s 803; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 16; 1923 c 159 s 1; 1886 p 39 s 2; RRS s 648. Prior: Code 1881 ss 174-192; 1877 pp 35-40; 1873 pp 43-50; 1871 pp 9, 10; 1869 pp 41-47; 1863 pp 112-120; 1860 pp 30-36; 1854 pp 155-162. Formerly RCW 7.12.020.]

Notes:

Rules of court: CR 64.
Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: Clearwater v. Skyline Construction Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clearwater v. Skyline Construction Co. (1992) washctapp · cites it 3× “030(10), "[t]hat the object for which the action is brought is to recover on a contract, express or implied", violates due process because it does not constitute an exigent circumstance.”
Wagner Development, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (1999) washctapp “But the trial court found that Wagner was entitled to approximately $17,000 in the lien foreclosure action that arose out of the same contractual obligations and was consolidated with the contract action before trial.”
Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg (2002) washctapp “In support of the motion for a writ of attachment, Kronenberg submitted Obermiller's declaration alleging that Van Blaricom assaulted her and that her damages were more than the value of the properties.”
Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg (2002) washctapp “*506 The motion for issuance of the writs was based on RCW 6.25.030(9), which provides that a writ of attachment may be issued if “the damages for which the action is brought” are for injuries arising from the commission of a crime.”
Sessions v. UMB Bank NA (2022) wawd · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants assert that UMB’s 11 counterclaim “merely recites the elements of RCW 6.25.030” and “does not present factual content 12 that would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that [Plaintiffs/Counterclaim 13 Defendants] are liable for the…”
Cara v. Salley (2023) wawd · cites it 3× “ng that affiant has reason to believe and does believe the following, together with specific facts on which 18 affiant’s belief in the allegations is based: (a) That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff (specifying the nature of the claim and the amount of such…”
Farhood v. Allyn (2006) washctapp “Allyn received the attachment by alleging, “the damages for which the action is brought are for injuries arising from the commission of some felony” under RCW 6.25.030(9). The trial court issued an order to show cause why the attachment should not continue, attached a statement…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.25.030(1) — 1 case
Clearwater v. Skyline Construction Co. (1992) washctapp “030(10), "[t]hat the object for which the action is brought is to recover on a contract, express or implied", violates due process because it does not constitute an exigent circumstance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.25.030(10) — 2 cases
Clearwater v. Skyline Construction Co. (1992) washctapp “030(10), "[t]hat the object for which the action is brought is to recover on a contract, express or implied", violates due process because it does not constitute an exigent circumstance.”
Wagner Development, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (1999) washctapp “But the trial court found that Wagner was entitled to approximately $17,000 in the lien foreclosure action that arose out of the same contractual obligations and was consolidated with the contract action before trial.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.25.030(8) — 1 case
Sessions v. UMB Bank NA (2022) wawd “Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants assert that UMB’s 11 counterclaim “merely recites the elements of RCW 6.25.030” and “does not present factual content 12 that would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that [Plaintiffs/Counterclaim 13 Defendants] are liable for the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.25.030(9) — 4 cases
Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg (2002) washctapp “In support of the motion for a writ of attachment, Kronenberg submitted Obermiller's declaration alleging that Van Blaricom assaulted her and that her damages were more than the value of the properties.”
Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg (2002) washctapp “*506 The motion for issuance of the writs was based on RCW 6.25.030(9), which provides that a writ of attachment may be issued if “the damages for which the action is brought” are for injuries arising from the commission of a crime.”
Farhood v. Allyn (2006) washctapp “Allyn received the attachment by alleging, “the damages for which the action is brought are for injuries arising from the commission of some felony” under RCW 6.25.030(9). The trial court issued an order to show cause why the attachment should not continue, attached a statement…”
Cara v. Salley (2023) wawd “ng that affiant has reason to believe and does believe the following, together with specific facts on which 18 affiant’s belief in the allegations is based: (a) That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff (specifying the nature of the claim and the amount of such…”
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.