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

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.250 (2026)

Property exempt from seizure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter does not authorize the seizure of, or other interference with, (1) any property which is expressly exempt by law from levy and sale by virtue of an execution, attachment, or garnishment; or (2) any money, thing in action or other property held in trust for a judgment debtor where the trust has been created by, or the fund so held in trust has proceeded from, a person other than the judgment debtor; or (3) the earnings of the judgment debtor for personal services to the extent they would be exempt against garnishment of the employer under RCW 6.27.150. For purposes of this section, a person shall not be treated as having made a disposition in trust for the use of that person by reason of a lapse of a power of withdrawal over the income or corpus of a trust created by another person. For this purpose, notification to the trustee of the trust of an intent not to exercise the power of withdrawal shall not be treated as a release of the power of withdrawal, but shall be treated as a lapse of the power.
[ 2006 c 360 s 13; 1987 c 442 s 1115; 1893 c 133 s 25; RRS s 637.]

Notes:

Clarification of laws—Enforceability of act—Severability—2006 c 360: See notes following RCW 11.108.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1953–2017 · leading case: Seattle First Nat'l Bank v. Crosby, 254 P.2d 732 (Wash. 1953).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seattle First Nat'l Bank v. Crosby, 254 P.2d 732 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 8× “Does RCW 6.32.250 (Rem. Rev. Stat., § 637) have any application to the facts of this case? 2.”
Erickson v. Bank of California, N.A., 643 P.2d 670 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 4× “RCW 6.32.250 2 has been said to have the "practical effect .”
Nelson v. White (In Re White), 61 B.R. 388 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1986). · cites it 4× “Before the matter could be heard on remand, the debtors moved to alter or amend judgment and urged as an alternative theory that the spendthrift trust restraints *391 were enforceable under state nonbankruptcy law, RCW 6.32.250, and therefore the exclusion of Section 541(c)(2)…”
Erickson v. Bank of California, 623 P.2d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “Most Washington cases discussing attempts by creditors to reach the assets of a trust have involved the application and interpretation of RCW 6.32.250 1 which has had *340 the "practical effect .”
In Re Pettit, 61 B.R. 341 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1986). “Statutory spendthrift trusts are established by RCW 6.32.250. The property must be held in a trust that has been created by, or has proceeded from, a settlor other than the beneficiary.”
Nelson v. White (In re White), 47 B.R. 410 (W.D. Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “The debtors now urge the court to consider whether the ERISA plan in this case is a spendthrift trust under RCW 6.32.250. In other words, the debtors argue that even if 11 U.”
Arnold v. Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass'n, 257 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1953). “The legislature has explicitly exempted certain types of property and the property of certain classes of judgment debtors, RCW 6.32.250. If it had been intended that voluntary associations were to be exempt or immune from supplemental proceedings, the legislature would have so…”
Est. of Paxton v. Comm'r, 86 T.C. 785 (1986). · cites it 6× “Accordingly, his inter vivos transfers to the trusts are includable in his gross estate under section 2036(a)(1) . Two Washington statutes address this issue.”
Ginger A. Galando v. Matthew P. Galando (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Although Matthew argues he quitclaimed his interest in the Galando House QPRT in March 2014, he did not provide documentation to support his argument.”
Arnold v. Nat. Union of Marine Cooks Etc., 257 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1953). “The legislature has explicitly exempted certain types of property and the property of certain classes of judgment debtors, RCW 6.32.250. If it had been intended that voluntary associations were to be exempt or immune from supplemental proceedings, the legislature would have so…”
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.