Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.220 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If the answer of the garnishee is controverted, as provided in RCW 6.27.210, the garnishee may respond by affidavit of the garnishee, the garnishee's attorney or agent, within twenty days of the filing of the controverting affidavit, with copies served on or mailed by first-class mail to the plaintiff at the address shown on the writ and to the defendant as provided in RCW 6.27.210. Upon the expiration of the time for garnishee's response, the matter may be noted by any party for hearing before a commissioner or presiding judge for a determination whether an issue is presented that requires a trial. If a trial is required, it shall be noted as in other cases, but no pleadings shall be necessary on such issue other than the affidavit of the plaintiff, the answer of the garnishee and the reply of the plaintiff or defendant controverting such answer, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · 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). “§ 6.27.220. If the garnishee was indebted to the debtor in any amount at the time of service of the writ of garnishment, the creditor is entitled to judgment against the garnishee for the amount it owes to the debtor.”
Atl. Cas. Ins. v. Oregon Mut. Ins., 153 P.3d 211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 6.27.220. Nor is Atlantic correct that a garnishment action cannot have a jury trial.”
Atl. Cas. Ins. v. Oregon Mut. Ins., 137 Wash. App. 296 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 6.27.220. Nor is Atlantic correct that a garnishment action cannot have a jury trial.”
Blair v. GIM Corp., Inc., 945 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “but no pleadings shall be necessary on such issue other than the affidavit of the plaintiff, the answer of the garnishee and the reply of the plaintiff or defendant controverting such answer RCW 6.27.220 (emphasis added). Where the answer is controverted, the costs of the…”
Maybee v. Machart, 757 P.2d 967 (Wash. 1988). “442; now codified as RCW 6.27.220). Such a result overly burdens clerks and interferes unnecessarily with the court's jurisdiction.”
Willard Gibson v. Marie-claire Harper Pagh (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Under RCW 6.27.220, garnishee had 4 RCW 6.27.210 provides in relevant part: "If the garnishee files an answer, either the plaintiff or the defendant, if not satisfied with the answer of the garnishee, may controvert within twenty days after the filing of the answer, by filing an…”
Yohannes v. Olympic Collection Inc (OCI) (W.D. Wash. 2022). “RCW § 6.27.220. If the 22 answer is controverted, “the matter may be noted by any party for hearing before a 23 commissioner or presiding judge for a determination whether an issue is presented that requires 24 a trial.”
Elite Cornerstone Constr., Llc., Resp/cr-app's V. Park Place Motors, App/cr-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “As far as the record before us reflects, Banner Bank did not respond and no party noted a hearing for a determination of whether an issue was presented that requires a trial, as permitted by the garnishment procedures at RCW 6.27.220. 4 No. 81640-3-I/5 Elite had requested…”
Anglin v. Merchants Credit Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2020). “CODE § 6.27.220. 23 5 The Court notes that Plaintiffs could have moved the Whatcom County Court for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees associated with challenging the garnishment, see WASH.”
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.