Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.010 (2026)

Order for examination of judgment debtor—Plaintiff entitled to costs—Additional fees if debtor fails to answer or appear—When warrants permitted

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) At any time within ten years after entry of a judgment for the sum of twenty-five dollars or over, unless the time is extended in accordance with RCW 6.17.020(3), upon application by the judgment creditor such court or judge may, by an order, require the judgment debtor to appear at a specified time and place before the judge granting the order, or a referee appointed by the judge, to answer concerning the same.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the judge to whom application is made under this chapter may, if it is made to appear to him or her by the affidavit of the judgment creditor, his or her agent or attorney that there is danger of the debtor absconding, order the sheriff to arrest the debtor and bring him or her before the judge granting the order. Upon being brought before the judge, he or she may be ordered to enter into a bond, with sufficient sureties, that he or she will attend from time to time before the judge or referee, as shall be directed, during the pendency of the proceedings and until the final termination thereof.
(3) If the judgment debtor or other persons against whom the special proceedings are instituted has been served with these proceedings, the plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of service, notary fees, and an appearance fee of twenty-five dollars. If the judgment debtor or other persons fail to answer or appear, the plaintiff shall additionally be entitled to reasonable attorney fees. If a plaintiff institutes special proceedings and fails to appear, a judgment debtor or other person against whom the proceeding was instituted who appears is entitled to an appearance fee of twenty-five dollars and reasonable attorney fees.
(4) A plaintiff may not seek a warrant for the arrest of a judgment debtor for any act or failure to act that arises out of or relates to a judgment for medical debt, unless the act or failure to act constitutes a crime under state law.
[ 2019 c 227 s 2; 1994 c 189 s 4; 1985 c 215 s 1; 1983 1st ex.s. c 45 s 6; 1980 c 105 s 5; 1971 ex.s. c 211 s 1; 1957 c 8 s 7; 1899 c 93 s 1; 1893 c 133 s 1; RRS s 613.]

Notes:

Application—1980 c 105: See note following RCW 4.16.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Eastham v. Arndt, 624 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eastham v. Arndt, 624 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “RCW 6.32.010 provided that "[a]t any time within six years after entry of a judgment for the sum of twenty-five dollars or over upon application by the judgment creditor, such court or judge may, by an order, require the judgment debtor to appear .”
Suleiman v. Cantino, 656 P.2d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Meanwhile, in an attempt to satisfy his judgment against Cantino, Suleiman instituted proceedings supplemental to execution pursuant to RCW 6.32.010. 1 After unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a satisfaction of the judgment, Suleiman obtained an order appointing a receiver…”
Est. of Bremer v. Walker, 348 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶25 RCW 6.32.010 provides: [U]pon application by the judgment creditor such court or judge may, by an order, require the judgment debtor to appear at a specified time and place before the judge granting the order .”
Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 660 P.2d 290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, the Church initiated supplemental proceedings pursuant to RCW 6.32.010 1 seeking to satisfy the judgment.”
Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 660 P.2d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “Unable to satisfy the judgment, it initiated supplemental proceedings pursuant to RCW 6.32.010 which provides in part that, At any time within ten years after entry of a judgment for the sum of twenty-five dollars or over upon application by the judgment creditor, such court or…”
Splash Design, Inc. v. Lee, 14 P.3d 879 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “In addition, the supplemental proceeding statute, RCW 6.32.010-,350, is the exclusive method for obtaining the information necessary to collect money awarded by the court, and nothing in the statute prohibits invoking it against a nonparty attorney sanctioned under CR 11.”
Arnold v. Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass'n, 257 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1953). “A casual reference to RCW 6.32.010, the basic statutory provision respecting supplemental proceedings, shows that such proceedings are authorized against “any judgment debtor.”
TicketOps Corp. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 6× “6 Costco moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and RCW 6.32.010 for 7 supplemental proceedings in aid of judgment.”
Cent. Flyway Air Inc v. Grey Ghost LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 6× “at 4-6, Dkt. No. 141. 19 Resolving the issue posed by the parties, that is, whether a judgment creditor seeking 20 postjudgment discovery in Rule 69(a)(2) proceedings pursuant to RCW § 6.”
Betz Cellars, Llc V. Red Scare Media, Llc D/b/a Varial Agency (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “The order also stated that “Red Scare Media, LLC’s d/b/a Varial Agency’s failure to comply with the terms of this Order shall result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to RCW 6.32.010, including without limitation .”
Splash Design, Inc. v. Lee, 14 P.3d 879 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “In addition, the supplemental proceeding statute, RCW 6.32.010 et seq., is the exclusive method for obtaining the information necessary to collect money awarded by the court, and nothing in the statute prohibits invoking it against a non-party attorney sanctioned under CR 11.”
Arnold v. Nat. Union of Marine Cooks Etc., 257 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1953). “A casual reference to RCW 6.32.010, the basic statutory provision respecting supplemental proceedings, shows that such proceedings are authorized against "any judgment debtor.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.010(1) — 2 cases
Cent. Flyway Air Inc v. Grey Ghost LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “at 4-6, Dkt. No. 141. 19 Resolving the issue posed by the parties, that is, whether a judgment creditor seeking 20 postjudgment discovery in Rule 69(a)(2) proceedings pursuant to RCW § 6.”
Betz Cellars, Llc V. Red Scare Media, Llc D/b/a Varial Agency (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The order also stated that “Red Scare Media, LLC’s d/b/a Varial Agency’s failure to comply with the terms of this Order shall result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to RCW 6.32.010, including without limitation .”
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.