Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.36.025 (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 copy of any foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with the act of congress or the statutes of this state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of any county of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the superior court of this state. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, set-offs, counterclaims, cross-complaints, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, staying, or extending as a judgment of a superior court of this state and may be enforced, extended, or satisfied in like manner.
(2) Alternatively, a copy of any foreign judgment (a) authenticated in accordance with the act of congress or the statutes of this state, and (b) within the civil jurisdiction and venue of the district court as provided in RCW 3.66.020, 3.66.030, and 3.66.040, may be filed in the office of the clerk of any district court of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the district court of this state. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, set-offs, counterclaims, cross-complaints, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, staying, transcribing, or extending as a judgment of a district court of this state, and may be enforced, transcribed, extended, or satisfied in like manner.
(3) The lien of any judgment filed under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be governed by chapter 4.56 RCW and RCW 6.17.020.
[ 2002 c 261 s 4; 1994 c 185 s 6; 1977 ex.s. c 45 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Tcap Corp. v. Gervin, 185 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tcap Corp. v. Gervin, 185 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶ 4 Plaintiff-creditor TCAP Corporation [4] registered the foreign judgment in the Pierce County Superior Court clerk's office on October 17, 1996 as required by RCW 6.36.025. [5] That year the Pierce County Superior Court entered an "Order Charging Partnership Interest.”
TCAP Corp. v. Gervin, 163 Wash. 2d 645 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶4 Plaintiff-creditor TCAP 4 registered the foreign judgment in the Pierce County Superior Court clerk’s office on October 17, 1996 as required by RCW 6.36.025. 5 That year the Pierce County Superior Court entered an “Order Charging Partnership Interest.”
Idaho Dep't of Health v. Holjeson, 708 P.2d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “He was given credit for amounts previously paid under the URESA orders. Mr. Holjeson appealed.”
In Re the Marriage of Ulm, 693 P.2d 181 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Code § 685 provides a means of enforcement where there has been an excusable failure to seek satisfaction of the judgment within the 10-year period of limitation fixed by section 681.”
Brown v. Garrett, 306 P.3d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 6.36.025. Once the foreign judgment is filed in superior court, it becomes a registered foreign judgment in this state.”
In Re the Est. of Tolson, 947 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under Washington law, a foreign judgment properly filed “has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, set-offs, counterclaims, cross-complaints, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a sxiperior court of this state and may…”
L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg, 271 P.3d 530 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “Wash. Rev. Code § 6.36.025 (2) (2010) (requiring a filing "within the civil jurisdiction and venue of the district court").”
Colorado Nat'l Bank v. Merlino, 668 P.2d 1304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “3 RCW 6.36.025, as pertinent here, provides: "A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, set-offs, counterclaims, cross-complaints, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a superior court of this state…”
Wellington v. Wellington, 575 P.2d 1088 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “…vacating, or staying as a judgment of a superior court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner. RCW 6.36.025.”
Effert v. Kalup, 723 P.2d 541 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “" RCW 6.36.025. 2 The affidavit of attorney fees and expenses submitted by Louise's counsel pursuant to RAP 18.”
State v. Brown, 965 P.2d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 6.36.025. Although Oregon suspended its RICO action during settlement negotiations with the Browns and, thus, did not obtain a judgment against Mahoney, its forbearance from proceeding provided consideration.”
State v. Brown, 965 P.2d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 6.36.025. Although Oregon suspended its RICO action during settlement negotiations with the Browns and, thus, did not obtain a judgment against Mahoney, its forbearance from proceeding provided consideration.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.36.025(1) — 10 cases
Tcap Corp. v. Gervin, 185 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 4 Plaintiff-creditor TCAP Corporation [4] registered the foreign judgment in the Pierce County Superior Court clerk's office on October 17, 1996 as required by RCW 6.36.025. [5] That year the Pierce County Superior Court entered an "Order Charging Partnership Interest.”
TCAP Corp. v. Gervin, 163 Wash. 2d 645 (Wash. 2008). “¶4 Plaintiff-creditor TCAP 4 registered the foreign judgment in the Pierce County Superior Court clerk’s office on October 17, 1996 as required by RCW 6.36.025. 5 That year the Pierce County Superior Court entered an “Order Charging Partnership Interest.”
Brown v. Garrett, 306 P.3d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 6.36.025. Once the foreign judgment is filed in superior court, it becomes a registered foreign judgment in this state.”
In Re the Est. of Tolson, 947 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Under Washington law, a foreign judgment properly filed “has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, set-offs, counterclaims, cross-complaints, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a sxiperior court of this state and may…”
Baker Atlas, Res/cross-app. v. Prince Cheruvathur, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
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.