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

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.190 (2026)

Attendance of judgment debtor

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A judgment debtor who resides or does business in the state cannot be compelled to attend pursuant to an order made under the provisions of this chapter at a place without the county where his or her residence or place of business is situated. Where the judgment debtor to be examined under this chapter is a corporation the court may cause such corporation to appear and be examined by making like order or orders as are prescribed in this chapter, directed to any officer or officers thereof.
[ 2011 c 336 s 161; 1893 c 133 s 19; RRS s 631.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Est. of Bremer v. Walker, 348 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Bremer v. Walker, 348 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “We hold that the trial court commissioner had authority under RCW 6.32.190 to compel Walker to appear in Pierce County for supplemental proceedings examinations even though he resided in King County because Walker did not produce evidence that he did not do business in Pierce…”
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 553 P.2d 442 (Wash. 1976). “Appellants also claim a violation of RCW 6.32.190, which provides: A judgment debtor who resides or does business in the state cannot be compelled to attend pursuant to an order made under the provisions of this chapter at a place without the county where his residence or place…”
Molander v. Raugust-Mathwig, Inc., 722 P.2d 103 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “Raugust contests personal liability for that judgment and further argues $89,621 of the judgment was barred by the statute of frauds and asserts the trial court had no jurisdiction to conduct supplemental proceedings under RCW 6.32.190. Mr. Molander cross-appeals, raising issues…”
Allen v. Am. Land Rsch., 611 P.2d 420 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “RCW 6.32.190 prevents examination of a debtor outside the county of his residence.”
Cent. Flyway Air Inc v. Grey Ghost LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 11× “The issue before the 12 Court is whether, proceeding under state law, GGGC must also comply with the venue provision at 13 RCW § 6.32.190. Under RCW § 6.32.190, 14 [a] judgment debtor who resides or does business in the state cannot be compelled to attend pursuant to an order…”
Betz Cellars, Llc V. Red Scare Media, Llc D/b/a Varial Agency (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 6.32.190. On 11 He also argued that “Respondent repeated this in the motion for entry of judgment: ‘Thomas Beck, although properly served with the Fourth Order, failed to comply with the Court’s Fourth Order.”
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.