Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.27

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.230

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Where the answer is controverted, the costs of the proceeding, including a reasonable compensation for attorney's fees, shall be awarded to the prevailing party: PROVIDED, That no costs or attorney's fees in such contest shall be taxable to the defendant in the event of a controversion by the plaintiff.
[ 1987 c 442 s 1023; 1969 ex.s. c 264 s 29. Formerly RCW 7.33.290.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Blair v. GIM Corp., Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blair v. GIM Corp., Inc. (1997) washctapp · cites it 12× “The court awarded respondents costs and fees of $15,990 under RCW 6.27.230. The court also awarded sanctions requested by respondents under CR 11 of $1,260 against Mr.”
Allstate Insurance v. Khani (1994) washctapp · cites it 3× “Thus, in this context, the trial court’s finding that Khani had actual notice of the judgment before the statute of limitation expired is irrelevant.”
Lindgren v. Lindgren (1990) washctapp · cites it 2× “2 Attorney's Fees RCW 6.27.230 provides for mandatory assessment of attorney's fees to a party who successfully opposes a writ of garnishment.”
Bartel v. Zucktriegel (2002) washctapp · cites it 2× “The prevailing party in a controversion proceeding is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs: Where the answer is controverted, the costs of the proceeding, including a reasonable compensation for attorney’s fees, shall be awarded to the prevailing party: PROVIDED, That…”
Crutchfield v. Marine Power Engine Co. (2009) okla “); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 6.27.230 (2009)(when a garnishee's answer is controverted, costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party, but no costs may be awarded against the defendant if the plaintiff controverts the answer).”
Cook v. Evanson (1996) washctapp “American States requests attorney fees pursuant to RCW 6.27.230. That statute provides fees to the prevailing party when an answer to a writ of garnishment is controverted.”
Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez (2000) wash “Leader argued that both the felony exclusion and the migrant workers’ exclusion in the insurance policy precluded coverage. The trial court ordered summary judgment in favor of Leader denying coverage on the basis of the migrant workers exclusion only, and awarded Leader…”
Luz Castellon, et vir v. Sergio Rodriguez, et ux (2018) washctapp · cites it 2× “1 and RCW 6.27.230 (regarding attorney fees in garnishment proceedings).”
Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez (2000) wash “The trial court ordered summary judgment in favor of Leader denying coverage on the basis of the migrant workers exclusion only, and awarded Leader reasonable attorney fees pursuant to RCW 6.”
Goodwin v. Wright (2000) washctapp “Goodwin does not contest this request, and under RCW 6.27.230, fees and costs are mandatory.”
Goodwin v. Wright (2000) washctapp “Goodwin does not contest this request, and under RCW 6.27.230, *11 fees and costs are mandatory.”
Robb v. Kaufman (1996) washctapp “Verla Justice requests attorney fees pursuant to RCW 6.27.230. This statute mandates that a court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in a garnishment proceeding when the garnishee-defendant’s answer is controverted.”
Show all 32 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.