Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.005 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature recognizes that a garnishee has no responsibility for the situation leading to the garnishment of a debtor's wages, funds, or other property, but that the garnishment process is necessary for the enforcement of obligations debtors otherwise fail to honor, and that garnishment procedures benefit the state and the business community as creditors. The state should take whatever measures that are reasonably necessary to reduce or offset the administrative burden on the garnishee consistent with the goal of effectively enforcing the debtor's unpaid obligations.
[ 2000 c 72 s 1; 1998 c 227 s 1; 1997 c 296 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 5× “Smith, Collection of Accounts: The Law in Washington § 3-11, at 25 (1981); Joan F.”
Sprinkle v. SB&C LTD., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “State Garnishment Procedures Garnishment is a statutory remedy which contemplates the existence of three distinct parties, each performing a distinct role in a prescribed series of events: a writ of garnishment directs a third person, the garnishee, not to deliver money or…”
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 5× “SMITH, COLLECTION OF ACCOUNTS: THE LAW IN WASHINGTON § 3-11, at 25 (1981); JOAN F.”
Seven Sales, LLC v. Otterbien, 356 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “” RCW 6.27.005. fl8 However, the garnishment statute appears to conflict with the sewer tax lien foreclosure statute.”
Kriegman v. Ponton (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× ““The purpose of the garnishment statute, as 12 13 stated in RCW 6.27.005, is to enforce the obligations of debtors.”
P.s.c., Inc., V. Purdys Pub. House, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “However, the legislature also recognizes that garnishee defendants have “no responsibility for the situation leading to the garnishment of a debtor’s wages, funds, or other property” and instructs the state to “take whatever measures that are reasonably necessary to reduce or…”
In Re The Marriage Of: Rosablanca Beinhauer v. Mark Beinhauer (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 6.27.005. However, this does not authorize Mark to take measures that he perceives as reasonably necessary to offset the administrative burden on the garnishee.”
Alina Farooq v. Azeem Khan (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “See RCW 6.27.005. Garnishment involves three parties: a judgment creditor, a judgment debtor, and a garnishee, which holds property belonging to the debtor.”
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.