Wash. Rev. Code » Title 60 · Chapter 60.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 60.04.051 (2026)

Property subject to lien

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The lot, tract, or parcel of land which is improved is subject to a lien to the extent of the interest of the owner at whose instance, directly or through a common law or construction agent the labor, professional services, equipment, or materials were furnished, as the court deems appropriate for satisfaction of the lien. If, for any reason, the title or interest in the land upon which the improvement is situated cannot be subjected to the lien, the court in order to satisfy the lien may order the sale and removal of the improvement from the land which is subject to the lien.
[ 1992 c 126 s 5; 1991 c 281 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Est. of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 210 P.3d 308 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 210 P.3d 308 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 11× “¶11 Before the trial court issued its order regarding RVs motion for summary judgment, RV moved for an order allowing it to remove its improvements pursuant to RCW 60.04.051. The Haselwoods opposed the motion, arguing RV had no authority to remove the improvements, RV had not…”
Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 155 P.3d 952 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “In the event the mechanic's lien did not attach to the underlying realty, RV Associates claimed it had statutory authority to remove its improvements to satisfy its lien under RCW 60.04.051. The City intervened in the action and opposed the motion to remove, arguing that removal…”
Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 137 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “In the event the mechanics’ lien did not attach to the underlying realty, RV Associates claimed it had statutory authority to remove its improvements to satisfy its lien under RCW 60.04.051. The City intervened in the action and opposed the motion to *880 remove, arguing that…”
CalPortland Co. v. LevelOne Concrete, LLC, 321 P.3d 1261 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “RCW 60.04.051. These liens were formerly known as “mechanics” or “materialmen’s liens” but are now simply referred to as “construction liens.”
Diversified Wood Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson, 251 P.3d 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The finding is relevant to RCW 60.04.051, which states in pertinent part that a parcel of land which is improved "is subject to a lien to the extent of the interest of the owner at whose instance, directly or through a common law or construction agent the labor, professional…”
Diversified Wood Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson, 161 Wash. App. 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The finding *878 is relevant to RCW 60.04.051, which states in pertinent part that a parcel of land which is improved “is subject to a lien to the extent of the interest of the owner at whose instance, directly or through a common law or construction agent the labor,…”
Olson Eng'g, Inc. v. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 286 P.3d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 60.04.051 (emphasis added). Under the plain language of these statutes, Olson had a valid construction lien on the work it performed only at the “instance of the owner,” Juneau, when it became the owner on June 1,2006.”
Est. of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 210 P.3d 308 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 12× “¶ 11 Before the trial court issued its order regarding RV's motion for summary judgment, RV moved for an order allowing it to remove its improvements pursuant to RCW 60.04.051. The Haselwoods opposed the motion, arguing RV had no authority to remove the improvements, RV had not…”
Christenson v. McDuffy, 968 P.2d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “081 is necessary to bring it into harmony with RCW 60.04.051. That statute describes how property becomes subject to a lien.”
Mdk Gen. Constr., Llc, V. Aspen Grove Owners Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “021, RCW 60.04.051, and RCW 64.34.260 to support its assertions on appeal.”
Lennar Multifamily Builders, Llc, V. Saxum Stone, Llc, 492 P.3d 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “121 provides: “Any lien or right of lien created by this chapter and the right of action to recover therefor, shall be assignable so as to vest in the assignee all rights and remedies of the assignor.”
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.