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

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The judgment creditor as the plaintiff or someone in the judgment creditor's behalf shall apply for a writ of garnishment by affidavit, stating the following facts: (1) The plaintiff has a judgment wholly or partially unsatisfied in the court from which the writ is sought; (2) the amount alleged to be due under that judgment; (3) the plaintiff has reason to believe, and does believe that the garnishee, stating the garnishee's name and residence or place of business, is indebted to the defendant in amounts exceeding those exempted from garnishment by any state or federal law, or that the garnishee has possession or control of personal property or effects belonging to the defendant which are not exempted from garnishment by any state or federal law; and (4) whether or not the garnishee is the employer of the judgment debtor.
The judgment creditor shall pay to the clerk of the superior court the fee provided by RCW 36.18.016(6), or to the clerk of the district court the fee provided by RCW 3.62.060.
[ 2018 c 22 s 4; 2003 c 222 s 17; 1988 c 231 s 22. Prior: 1987 c 442 s 1006; 1987 c 202 s 133; 1981 c 193 s 3; 1977 ex.s. c 55 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 264 s 4. Formerly RCW 7.33.040.]

Notes:

Explanatory statement—2018 c 22: See note following RCW 1.20.051.
Severability—1988 c 231: See note following RCW 6.01.050.
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: Bour v. Johnson, 910 P.2d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bour v. Johnson, 910 P.2d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “2d 938 (1979); RCW 6.27.060 (plaintiff must have unsatisfied judgment in court where writ sought).”
Sprinkle v. SB&C LTD., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “§ 6.27.070. In its answer, the garnishee must provide information about the funds or property of the debtor in its control and the amount it owed the debtor at the time of service of the writ.”
Cook v. Evanson, 920 P.2d 1223 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “See RCW 6.27.060. American States likely submitted an answer stating that it owed no compensation to Adnil that appellants could garnish.”
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (E.D. Wash. 1999). “Neither the statute authorizing application for writs, RCW 6.27.060, nor the statute authorizing issuance of writs, RCW 6.”
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 6.27.060 arid .070. The writ serves as the mechanism initiating an action against a garnishee, directing the garnishee to answer whether it holds funds or property owing to the debtor.”
Luz Castellon, et vir v. Sergio Rodriguez, et ux, 418 P.3d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 724 (1994); see generally RCW 6.27.060, .070. 12 No. 35137-8-III Castellon v.”
Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co. v. Cochran, 156 P.3d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 15 In the principal action, Metropolitan obtained a default judgment against Mr. Cochran. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court stated that the purchase and sale agreement and the assignment to Metropolitan Mortgage were valid and enforceable.”
Seven Sales, LLC v. Otterbien, 356 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 6.27.060, .100. Washington law recognizes 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.”
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 6.27.060 and .070. The writ serves as the mechanism initiating an action against a garnishee, directing the garnishee to answer whether it holds funds or property owing to the debtor.”
Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co. v. Cochran, 138 Wash. App. 267 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶15 In the principal action, Metropolitan obtained a default judgment against Mr. Cochran. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court stated that the purchase and sale agreement and the assignment to Metropolitan Mortgage were valid and enforceable.”
Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.060 . The superior court issues the writ of garnishment 3 to the garnishee and directs the garnishee to answer the writ.”
Ict Law & Tech. Grp. Pllc v. Seatree Pllc (9th Cir. 2019). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.060 , 6.27.070 (procedures for writ application and issuance of writ); Watkins v.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.