Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.40A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.40A.020 (2026)

Applicability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, this chapter applies to a foreign-country judgment to the extent that the judgment:
(a) Grants or denies recovery of a sum of money; and
(b) Under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final, conclusive, and enforceable.
(2) This chapter does not apply to a foreign-country judgment, even if the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, to the extent that the judgment is:
(a) A judgment for taxes;
(b) A fine or other penalty; or
(c) A judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations.
(3) A party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that this chapter applies to the foreign-country judgment.
[ 2009 c 363 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Dille v. Toland, 329 P.3d 878 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dille v. Toland, 329 P.3d 878 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). ¶14 The trial court explained, however, that the decree could be recognized if the Estate established that this would be appropriate under the doctrine of comity.”
Shanghai Com. Bank Ltd. v. Kung Da Chang, 381 P.3d 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “1 RCW 6.40A.020(1). 2 Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd.”
Est. of Toland v. Toland, 286 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The saving clause states, however, that “[t]his chapter does not prevent the recognition under principles of comity or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of this chapter.”
Clay v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings (W.D. Wash. 2020). “RCW 6.40A.020(2). No party argues that the judgment relates to any of these elements (see generally MSJ; Resp.”
Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. v. SpiceJet Ltd. (Wash. 2026). “RCW 6.40A.020, .050. Once recognized, a foreign country money judgment is enforceable in our state like a judgment rendered by a Washington court.”
Alterna Aircraft V.b. Ltd., V. Spicejet Ltd., 559 P.3d 1026 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The Act authorizes state courts to recognize foreign country money judgments that are final, conclusive, and enforceable under the law of the country where rendered.”
In re Est. of Toland (Wash. 2014). “" RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The trial court explained, however, that the decree could be recognized ifthe Estate established that this would be appropriate under the doctrine of comity.”
Shanghai Com. Bank, Resp v. Kung Da Chang & Jane Doe Chang, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “70526-1-1/5 tribunal-specific due process concern grants Washington courts discretion to deny recognition if "[t]he specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.”
In re Est. of Toland (Wash. 2014). “" RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The trial court explained, however, that the decree could be recognized ifthe Estate established that this would be appropriate under the doctrine of comity.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.40A.020(1) — 3 cases
Shanghai Com. Bank Ltd. v. Kung Da Chang, 381 P.3d 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “1 RCW 6.40A.020(1). 2 Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd.”
Alterna Aircraft V.b. Ltd., V. Spicejet Ltd., 559 P.3d 1026 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The Act authorizes state courts to recognize foreign country money judgments that are final, conclusive, and enforceable under the law of the country where rendered.”
Shanghai Com. Bank, Resp v. Kung Da Chang & Jane Doe Chang, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “70526-1-1/5 tribunal-specific due process concern grants Washington courts discretion to deny recognition if "[t]he specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.40A.020(2) — 1 case
Clay v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings (W.D. Wash. 2020). “RCW 6.40A.020(2). No party argues that the judgment relates to any of these elements (see generally MSJ; Resp.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.40A.020(2)(c) — 4 cases
Dille v. Toland, 329 P.3d 878 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). ¶14 The trial court explained, however, that the decree could be recognized if the Estate established that this would be appropriate under the doctrine of comity.”
Est. of Toland v. Toland, 286 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The saving clause states, however, that “[t]his chapter does not prevent the recognition under principles of comity or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of this chapter.”
In re Est. of Toland (Wash. 2014). “" RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The trial court explained, however, that the decree could be recognized ifthe Estate established that this would be appropriate under the doctrine of comity.”
In re Est. of Toland (Wash. 2014). “" RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The trial court explained, however, that the decree could be recognized ifthe Estate established that this would be appropriate under the doctrine of comity.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 6.40A.020(l)(b) — 1 case
Est. of Toland v. Toland, 286 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c). The saving clause states, however, that “[t]his chapter does not prevent the recognition under principles of comity or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of this chapter.”
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.