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

Wash. Rev. Code § 60.04.141 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No lien created by this chapter binds the property subject to the lien for a longer period than eight calendar months after the claim of lien has been recorded unless an action is filed by the lien claimant within that time in the superior court in the county where the subject property is located to enforce the lien, and service is made upon the owner of the subject property within ninety days of the date of filing the action; or, if credit is given and the terms thereof are stated in the claim of lien, then eight calendar months after the expiration of such credit; and in case the action is not prosecuted to judgment within two years after the commencement thereof, the court, in its discretion, may dismiss the action for want of prosecution, and the dismissal of the action or a judgment rendered thereon that no lien exists shall constitute a cancellation of the lien. This is a period of limitation, which shall be tolled by the filing of any petition seeking protection under Title Eleven, United States Code by an owner of any property subject to the lien established by this chapter.
[ 1992 c 126 s 8; 1991 c 281 s 14.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Diversified Wood Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson, 251 P.3d 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Diversified Wood Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson, 251 P.3d 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “enforce the lien within 8 months of recording the lien and serves "the owner of the subject property" within 90 days of filing the action: No lien created by this chapter binds the property subject to the lien for a longer period than eight calendar months after the claim of…”
Diversified Wood Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson, 161 Wash. App. 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “within 8 months of recording the lien and serves “the owner of the subject property” within 90 days of filing the action: No lien created by this chapter binds the property subject to the lien for a longer period than eight calendar months after the claim of lien has been…”
CalPortland Co. v. LevelOne Concrete, LLC, 321 P.3d 1261 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “as required by RCW 60.04.141 and 60.04.161. CP at 25-26.”
Inland Empire Dry Wall Supply Co. v. W. Sur. Co., 389 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 52× “The trial court reasoned that under Ca/Portland, when legal action is taken to foreclose on a lien release bond, the statute of limitations under RCW 60.04.141 for service of the lawsuit on a property owner is replaced by an analogous statute of limitations requiring service on…”
Bob Pearson Constr., Inc. v. First Cmty. Bank, 43 P.3d 1261 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “RCW 60.04.141 requires a lien claimant to file an action within eight months after filing the claim of lien and to serve the property owner within 90 days after that.”
Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc., 261 P.3d 109 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “Are AFI’s claims moot because the statute of limitations on filing an enforcement action for its lien has passed? ¶15 The Williamses first argue that AFI’s claims are moot because AFI did not file an enforcement action within eight months of recording its claim of lien, as…”
Van Wolvelaere v. Weathervane Window Co., 177 P.3d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 23× “The Van Wolvelaeres contend the trial court erred in ruling that Weathervane complied with the statutory requirements of chapter 60.04 RCW and entering a decree of foreclosure on the lien.”
Woodstream Constr. Corp. v. Van Wolvelaere, 143 Wash. App. 400 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 23× “The Van Wolvelaeres contend the trial court erred in ruling that Weathervane complied with the statutory requirements of chapter 60.04 RCW and entering a decree of foreclosure on the lien.”
Schumacher Painting Co. v. First Union Mgmt., Inc., 850 P.2d 1361 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “100 was repealed and replaced by RCW 60.04.141. The changes apply to improvements commenced by a potential lien claimant on or after June 1, 1992.”
Francisco Guillen v. Benjamin Pearson, 381 P.3d 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Once a lien claim is filed, under RCW 60.04.141 the claimant must file an action on the lien in superior court within eight months and then *481 properly serve the complaint within 90 days of filing.”
Shelcon Constr. Grp., LLC v. Haymond, 351 P.3d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A specific lien claim expires within the eight-month period under RCW 60.04.141, but the underlying right to claim a lien does not expire until 90 days after work ceases.”
Geo Exch. Sys., L.L.C. v. Cam, 65 P.3d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “GES and TECI argue that the trial court erred in (1) ruling that the statute of limitations in RCW 60.04.141 extinguished TECI’s right to collect the $1 million, which had been the subject of an earlier expired lien, and (2) reducing the later lien in a summary proceed *627 ing.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.