Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.190 (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) The answer of the garnishee shall be signed by the garnishee or attorney or if the garnishee is a corporation, by an officer, attorney or duly authorized agent of the garnishee, under penalty of perjury, and the original and copies delivered, either personally or by mail, as instructed in the writ.
(2) If the writ of garnishment is for a continuing lien, the answer forms shall be as prescribed in RCW 6.27.340 and 6.27.350.
(3) If the writ is not directed to an employer for the purpose of garnishing the defendant's wages, the answer shall be substantially in the following form:
IN THE . . . . . COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF . . . . . . | |
. . . . | NO. . . . . . |
Plaintiff | |
vs. | ANSWER |
. . . . | TO WRIT OF |
Defendant | GARNISHMENT |
. . . . | |
Garnishee Defendant | |
SECTION I. On the date the writ of garnishment was issued as indicated by the date appearing on the last page of the writ:
(A) The defendant: (check one) . . . . was, . . . . was not employed by garnishee. If not employed and you have no possession or control of any funds of defendant, indicate the last day of employment: . . . . . . .; and complete section III of this answer and mail or deliver the forms as directed in the writ;
(B) The defendant: (check one) . . . . did, . . . . did not maintain a financial account with garnishee; and
(C) The garnishee: (check one) . . . . did, . . . . did not have possession of or control over any funds, personal property, or effects of the defendant. (List all of defendant's personal property or effects in your possession or control on the last page of this answer form or attach a schedule if necessary.)
SECTION II. At the time of service of the writ of garnishment on the garnishee there was due and owing from the garnishee to the above-named defendant $ . . . . .
If there is any uncertainty about your answer, give an explanation on the last page or on an attached page.
SECTION III. An attorney may answer for the garnishee.
Under penalty of perjury, I affirm that I have examined this answer, including accompanying schedules, and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct, and complete.
. . . . | . . . . |
Signature of | Date |
Garnishee Defendant | |
. . . . | . . . . |
Signature of person | Connection with |
answering for | garnishee |
garnishee | |
. . . . | . . . . |
Print name of person signing | . . . . Address of garnishee |
[ 2012 c 159 s 10; 2003 c 222 s 8; 2000 c 72 s 4; 1997 c 296 s 5; 1988 c 231 s 30; 1987 c 442 s 1019; 1969 ex.s. c 264 s 15. Formerly RCW 7.33.150.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. SPR 91.04W(c).
Severability—1988 c 231: See note following RCW 6.01.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Sprinkle v. SB&C LTD., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
Sprinkle v. SB&C LTD., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “§ 6.27.190. Thereafter, either the creditor or defendant debtor may controvert the garnishee’s answer by filing an affidavit, to which the garnishee may respond by affidavit.”
Cook v. Evanson, 920 P.2d 1223 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “See RCW 6.27.190. Then, appellants presumably filed an affidavit controverting American States’s answer, presenting the legal question at issue here as to whether the pollution exclusion clause precludes coverage.”
Bartel v. Zucktriegel, 112 Wash. App. 55 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 6.27.190, .340. If the creditor/plaintiff or defendant is not satisfied with the answer, either party may controvert the answer.”
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “See generally RCW 6.27.190 through .320; see also Theodore R.”
Bartel v. Zucktriegel, 47 P.3d 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 6.27.190,.340. If the creditor/plaintiff or defendant is not satisfied with the answer, either party may controvert the answer.”
Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “See generally RCW 6.27.190 through .320; see also THEODORE R.”
Alina Farooq v. Azeem Khan (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 6.27.190. The judgment debtor or judgment creditor may challenge the garnishee’s answer.”
Anglin v. Merchants Credit Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2020). “CODE § 6.27.190. Thereafter, either the creditor or debtor may contest the garnishee’s answer by filing an affidavit, to which the 22 garnishee may respond by affidavit.”
Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC (W.D. Wash. 2022). “§ 6.27.190, and assuming the garnishee’s answer is not controverted, see 5 id.”
P.s.c., Inc., V. Purdys Pub. House, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “60806-5-II (1) Service of the writ of garnishment, including a writ for continuing lien on earnings, on the garnishee is invalid unless the writ is served together with: (a) An answer form as prescribed in RCW 6.27.190; and (b) a check or money order made payable to the…”
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.