Wash. Rev. Code » Title 60 · Chapter 60.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 60.28.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person, firm, or corporation filing a claim against the reserve fund shall have four months from the time of the filing thereof in which to bring an action to foreclose the lien. The lien shall be enforced by action in the superior court of the county where filed, and shall be governed by the laws regulating the proceedings in civil actions touching the mode and manner of trial and the proceedings and laws to secure property so as to hold it for the satisfaction of any lien against it: PROVIDED, That the public body shall not be required to make any detailed answer to any complaint or other pleading but need only certify to the court the name of the contractor; the work contracted to be done; the date of the contract; the date of completion and final acceptance of the work; the amount retained; the amount of taxes certified due or to become due to the state; and all claims filed with it showing respectively the dates of filing, the names of claimants, and amounts claimed. Such certification shall operate to arrest payment of so much of the funds retained as is required to discharge the taxes certified due or to become due and the claims filed in accordance with this chapter. In any action brought to enforce the lien, the claimant, if he or she prevails, is entitled to recover, in addition to all other costs, attorney fees in such sum as the court finds reasonable. If a claimant fails to bring action to foreclose his or her lien within the four months period, the reserve fund shall be discharged from the lien of his or her claim and the funds shall be paid to the contractor. The four months limitation shall not, however, be construed as a limitation upon the right to sue the contractor or his or her surety where no right of foreclosure is sought against the fund.
[ 2012 c 117 s 146; 1979 ex.s. c 38 s 1; 1955 c 236 s 3; 1927 c 241 s 1; 1921 c 166 s 3; RRS s 10322.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Expert Drywall, Inc. v. Ellis-Don Constr., Inc., 939 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Expert Drywall, Inc. v. Ellis-Don Constr., Inc., 939 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 28× “Because Expert was not entitled to an award of attorney fees under RCW 60.28.030, we affirm. Ellis-Don was the general contractor for the construction of Plateau Middle School in Issaquah School District No.”
Keystone Masonry, Inc. v. GARCO CONST., 147 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Keystone objected to a change of venue and asserted that: (1) Garco was violating the public policy against forum shopping; (2) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, venue should remain in Pierce County because at least 19 witnesses were located there; and (3) RCW…”
Keystone Masonry, Inc. v. Garco Constr., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Keystone objected to a change of venue and asserted that: (1) Garco was violating the public policy against forum shopping; (2) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, venue should remain in Pierce County because at least 19 witnesses were located there; and (3) RCW…”
Shope Enter., Inc. v. Kent Sch. Dist., 702 P.2d 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “(Prime), arguing that there were material issues of disputed fact, that RCW 60.28.030 violates equal protection, and that service of the summons and complaint was substantial compliance with the notice provisions of RCW 60.”
Diamaco, Inc. v. Mettler, 135 Wash. App. 572 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “030 1 and RCW 60.28.030. 2 ¶5 ARM appeals, alleging the trial court erred by failing to award its actual fees incurred.”
Mullen Lumber Co. v. Lore, 537 N.E.2d 123 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “2, supra at 233; Wash. Rev. Code § 60.28.030 (1961 & 1988 Supp.”
Airefco, Inc. v. Yelm Cmty. Schs. No. 2, 758 P.2d 996 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Huff moved to dismiss Airefco's complaint, claiming that Airefco's action was barred by provisions of the public works lien statute, RCW 60.28.030, because Airefco did not file its lawsuit to foreclose its lien within 4 months of the time it filed its first notice of claim of…”
North Coast Elec. Co. v. Signal Elec., Inc., 373 P.3d 296 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “010 and RCW 60.28.030 is indisputable and it will be the ultimate prevailing party even if Fidelity prevails on its partial defense.”
Keller Supply Co. v. Lydig Constr. Co., 789 P.2d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “We believe Keller's cross appeal is well taken as the provisions of RCW 60.28.030 and RCW 39.08.030 provide for attorney's fees in any action brought to enforce the lien.”
Better Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Caicos Corp., 73 P.3d 424 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “" (Emphasis added). RCW *431 60.28.030 states, in part, "[i]n any action brought to enforce the lien, the claimant, if he prevails, is entitled to recover .”
Moore v. Flateau, 225 P.3d 361 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The plaintiff contended that the contract provision could not supersede the venue provided by the public works lien statute, RCW 60.28.030. Keystone Masonry, 135 Wn. App.”
Better Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Caicos Corp., 117 Wash. App. 899 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “030 states, in part, “[i]n any action brought to enforce the lien, the claimant, if he prevails, is entitled to recover .”
Show all 24 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.