Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250 (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)(a) If it appears from the answer of the garnishee or if it is otherwise made to appear that the garnishee was indebted to the defendant in any amount, not exempt, when the writ of garnishment was served, and if the required return or affidavit showing service on or mailing to the defendant is on file, the court shall render judgment for the plaintiff against such garnishee for the amount so admitted or found to be due to the defendant from the garnishee, unless such amount exceeds the amount of the plaintiff's claim or judgment against the defendant with accruing interest and costs and attorney's fees as prescribed in RCW 6.27.090, in which case it shall be for the amount of such claim or judgment, with said interest, costs, and fees. If there is no unresolved exemption claim and no controversion, the plaintiff may apply for the judgment and order to pay ex parte. In the case of a superior court garnishment, the court shall order the garnishee to pay to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's attorney through the registry of the court the amount of the judgment against the garnishee, the clerk of the court shall note receipt of any such payment, and the clerk of the court shall disburse the payment to the plaintiff. In the case of a district court garnishment, the court shall order the garnishee to pay the judgment amount directly to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's attorney. In either case, the court shall inform the garnishee that failure to pay the amount may result in execution of the judgment, including garnishment.

(b) If, prior to judgment, the garnishee tenders to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's attorney or to the court any amounts due, such tender will support judgment against the garnishee in the amount so tendered, subject to any exemption claimed within the time required in RCW 6.27.160 after the amounts are tendered, and subject to any controversion filed within the time required in RCW 6.27.210 after the amounts are tendered. Any amounts tendered to the court by or on behalf of the garnishee or the defendant prior to judgment shall be disbursed to the party entitled to same upon entry of judgment or order, and any amounts so tendered after entry of judgment or order shall be disbursed upon receipt to the party entitled to same.

(2) If it shall appear from the answer of the garnishee and the same is not controverted, or if it shall appear from the hearing or trial on controversion or by stipulation of the parties that the garnishee is indebted to the principal defendant in any sum, but that such indebtedness is not matured and is not due and payable, and if the required return or affidavit showing service on or mailing to the defendant is on file, the court shall make an order requiring the garnishee to pay such sum into court when the same becomes due, the date when such payment is to be made to be specified in the order, and in default thereof that judgment shall be entered against the garnishee for the amount of such indebtedness so admitted or found due. In case the garnishee pays the sum at the time specified in the order, the payment shall operate as a discharge, otherwise judgment shall be entered against the garnishee for the amount of such indebtedness, which judgment shall have the same force and effect, and be enforced in the same manner as other judgments entered against garnishees as provided in this chapter: PROVIDED, That if judgment is rendered in favor of the principal defendant, or if any judgment rendered against the principal defendant is satisfied prior to the date of payment specified in an order of payment entered under this subsection, the garnishee shall not be required to make the payment, nor shall any judgment in such case be entered against the garnishee.

(3) The court shall, upon request of the plaintiff at the time judgment is rendered against the garnishee or within one year thereafter, or within one year after service of the writ on the garnishee if no judgment is taken against the garnishee, render judgment against the defendant for recoverable garnishment costs and attorney fees. However, if it appears from the answer of garnishee or otherwise that, at the time the writ was issued, the garnishee held no funds, personal property, or effects of the defendant and, in the case of a garnishment on earnings, the defendant was not employed by the garnishee, or, in the case of a writ directed to a financial institution, the defendant maintained no account therein, then the plaintiff may not be awarded judgment against the defendant for such costs or attorney fees.

[ 2012 c 159 s 12; 2003 c 222 s 10; 2000 c 72 s 5; 1988 c 231 s 32; 1987 c 442 s 1025; 1969 ex.s. c 264 s 20. Formerly RCW 7.33.200.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. SPR 91.04W(d).

Severability—1988 c 231: See note following RCW 6.01.050.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · 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 15× “RCW 6.27.250. PEI argues that even though the statute refers to judgment procedures, these procedures are not mandated.”

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Calloway Ross, Inc., 137 P.3d 879 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “*625 ¶10 The parties do not dispute that the judgment entered against Calloway in the substantive lawsuit was valid on November 30, or that by virtue of its insurance policy with Calloway, Lexington was indebted to Calloway for its insured portion of the substantive judgment.”

Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 16× “RCW 6.27.250. PEI argues that even though the statute refers to judgment procedures, these procedures are not mandated.”

Campion v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 206 F.R.D. 663 (E.D. Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “104), where “after the fact” judgments are obtained, FDCPA, WCPA and WCAA claims may be vitiated by the remedial effect of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6295 (“ESSB 6295”), which modified Wash. Rev.Code § 6.27.250(1). Thus, in all Collection Class claims where Defendant CBS…”

Sprinkle v. SB&C LTD., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “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.”

Seven Sales, LLC v. Otterbien, 356 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “If the garnishee is “indebted” to or “has possession or control of personal property or effects belonging to the defendant,” the garnishee must hold the defendant’s property pursuant to a writ of garnishment. RCW 6.27.060, .100. Washington law recognizes that “the garnishment…”

Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 5× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250 (a)(1) (“[T]he court shall order the garnishee 12 to pay to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney through the registry of the court the amount of the 13 judgment against the garnishee[.”

White v. Skagit Bonded Collectors LLC (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250 (3). Therefore, SBC 9 violated Section 21 by collecting amounts that the marital community did not owe.”

Percash Ramnath v. Ling D. Wang (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “In exercising this discretion, we consider the arguable merit of the issues on appeal and the parties' financial resources.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250(1) — 3 cases

Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 6.27.250. PEI argues that even though the statute refers to judgment procedures, these procedures are not mandated.”

Campion v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 206 F.R.D. 663 (E.D. Wash. 2001). “104), where “after the fact” judgments are obtained, FDCPA, WCPA and WCAA claims may be vitiated by the remedial effect of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6295 (“ESSB 6295”), which modified Wash. Rev.Code § 6.27.250(1). Thus, in all Collection Class claims where Defendant CBS…”

Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 6.27.250. PEI argues that even though the statute refers to judgment procedures, these procedures are not mandated.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250(1)(a) — 3 cases

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Calloway Ross, Inc., 137 P.3d 879 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “*625 ¶10 The parties do not dispute that the judgment entered against Calloway in the substantive lawsuit was valid on November 30, or that by virtue of its insurance policy with Calloway, Lexington was indebted to Calloway for its insured portion of the substantive judgment.”

Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC (W.D. Wash. 2022). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250 (a)(1) (“[T]he court shall order the garnishee 12 to pay to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney through the registry of the court the amount of the 13 judgment against the garnishee[.”

Percash Ramnath v. Ling D. Wang (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In exercising this discretion, we consider the arguable merit of the issues on appeal and the parties' financial resources.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250(2) — 2 cases

Watkins v. Peterson Enter., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 6.27.250. PEI argues that even though the statute refers to judgment procedures, these procedures are not mandated.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.250(l)(a) — 3 cases

Seven Sales, LLC v. Otterbien, 356 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “If the garnishee is “indebted” to or “has possession or control of personal property or effects belonging to the defendant,” the garnishee must hold the defendant’s property pursuant to a writ of garnishment. RCW 6.27.060, .100. Washington law recognizes that “the garnishment…”

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.