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

Wash. Rev. Code § 60.04.161 (2026)

Bond in lieu of claim

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any owner of real property subject to a recorded claim of lien under this chapter, or contractor, subcontractor, lender, or lien claimant who disputes the correctness or validity of the claim of lien may record, either before or after the commencement of an action to enforce the lien, in the office of the county recorder or auditor in the county where the claim of lien was recorded, a bond issued by a surety company authorized to issue surety bonds in the state. The surety shall be listed in the latest federal department of the treasury list of surety companies acceptable on federal bonds, published in the Federal Register, as authorized to issue bonds on United States government projects with an underwriting limitation, including applicable reinsurance, equal to or greater than the amount of the bond to be recorded. The bond shall contain a description of the claim of lien and real property involved, and be in an amount equal to the greater of five thousand dollars or two times the amount of the lien claimed if it is ten thousand dollars or less, and in an amount equal to or greater than one and one-half times the amount of the lien if it is in excess of ten thousand dollars. If the claim of lien affects more than one parcel of real property and is segregated to each parcel, the bond may be segregated the same as in the claim of lien. A separate bond shall be required for each claim of lien made by separate claimants. However, a single bond may be used to guarantee payment of amounts claimed by more than one claim of lien by a single claimant so long as the amount of the bond meets the requirements of this section as applied to the aggregate sum of all claims by such claimant. The condition of the bond shall be to guarantee payment of any judgment upon the lien in favor of the lien claimant entered in any action to recover the amount claimed in a claim of lien, or on the claim asserted in the claim of lien. The effect of recording a bond shall be to release the real property described in the notice of claim of lien from the lien and any action brought to recover the amount claimed. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, if no action is commenced to recover on a lien within the time specified in RCW 60.04.141, the surety shall be discharged from liability under the bond. If an action is timely commenced, then on payment of any judgment entered in the action or on payment of the full amount of the bond to the holder of the judgment, whichever is less, the surety shall be discharged from liability under the bond.
Nothing in this section shall in any way prohibit or limit the use of other methods, devised by the affected parties to secure the obligation underlying a claim of lien and to obtain a release of real property from a claim of lien.
[ 1992 c 126 s 10; 1991 c 281 s 16.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Olson Eng'g, Inc. v. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 286 P.3d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olson Eng'g, Inc. v. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 286 P.3d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 29× “In September 2009 KeyBank recorded and in October filed a RCW 60.04.161 “Release of Lien Bond,” which provided ongoing security for Olson’s lien claim and allowed KeyBank to foreclose on the Meriwether Properties at the trustee’s sale free of Olson’s lien.”
CalPortland Co. v. LevelOne Concrete, LLC, 321 P.3d 1261 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “Before the lawsuit was filed, however, Ferguson recorded a bond in lieu of claim under RCW 60.04.161, issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, releasing the Costco property from the lien.”
DBM Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 142 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “¶6 This dispute over which events trigger the obligation of the bond depends on the interpretation of *39 RCW 60.04.161, the lien bond statute. The interpretation of this statute is an issue of first impression.”
Inland Empire Dry Wall Supply Co. v. W. Sur. Co., 389 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 49× “RCW 60.04.161. 4 No. 34022-8-III Inland Empire Dry Wall Supply Co.”
DBM Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. US Fid. & Guar. Co., 170 P.3d 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “¶ 6 This dispute over which events trigger the obligation of the bond depends on the interpretation of RCW 60.04.161, the lien bond statute. The interpretation of this statute is an issue of first impression.”
Skilcraft Fiberglass, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 863 P.2d 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “5 This statute is now RCW 60.04.161, but these requirements have not changed.”
Andries v. Covey, 113 P.3d 483 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The Coveys and the Andries then stipulated that the Andries would deposit one and one-half times the amount of the lien into the court registry as a bond in lieu of the lien, as provided for in RCW 60.04.161. The money was deposited, the lien was released, and the house was sold.”
Andries v. Covey, 113 P.3d 483 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The Coveys and the Andries then stipulated that the Andries would deposit one and one-half times the amount of the lien into the court registry as a bond in lieu of the lien, as provided for in RCW 60.04.161. The money was deposited, the lien was released, and the house was sold.”
Stonewood Design, Inc. v. Heritage Homes, Inc., 269 P.3d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “¶4 In accordance with the release of lien bond statute, RCW 60.04.161, the Gretsches obtained release of the lien by posting a bond in favor of CBIC.”
Inland Empire Dry Wall Supply Co. v. W. Sur. Co. (Wash. 2018). · cites it 26× “Fowler, as purchaser of the bond, together with Western became owners ofthe subject "property.”
Cesar Hernandez v. Edmonds Memory Care, Llc, 450 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The court’s order refers to RCW 60.04.161 but appears to be relying on 1 RCW 60.”
Inland Empire Dry Wall Supply Co. v. W. Sur. Co. (Wash. 2018). · cites it 23× “Fowler, as purchaser of the bond, together with Western became owners ofthe subject "property." The trial court therefore dismissed the lawsuit because Inland Empire failed to name and to serve Fowler as a party within the 90 days required under RCW 60.”
Show all 19 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.