Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.030 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Warranty deeds for the conveyance of land may be substantially in the following form, without express covenants:
The grantor (here insert the name or names and place or residence) for and in consideration of (here insert consideration) in hand paid, conveys and warrants to (here insert the grantee's name or names) the following described real estate (here insert description), situated in the county of . . . . . ., state of Washington. Dated this . . . . day of . . . . . ., (year) . . . .
Every deed in substance in the above form, when otherwise duly executed, shall be deemed and held a conveyance in fee simple to the grantee, his or her heirs and assigns, with covenants on the part of the grantor: (1) That at the time of the making and delivery of such deed he or she was lawfully seized of an indefeasible estate in fee simple, in and to the premises therein described, and had good right and full power to convey the same; (2) that the same were then free from all encumbrances; and (3) that he or she warrants to the grantee, his or her heirs and assigns, the quiet and peaceable possession of such premises, and will defend the title thereto against all persons who may lawfully claim the same, and such covenants shall be obligatory upon any grantor, his or her heirs and personal representatives, as fully and with like effect as if written at full length in such deed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Mellor v. Chamberlin, 673 P.2d 610 (Wash. 1983).
Mellor v. Chamberlin, 673 P.2d 610 (Wash. 1983). “are presented by the appeal: First, whether an action for breach of a covenant of title is barred under the doctrine of res judicata by a prior lawsuit for misrepresentation which was settled between the same parties and concerned the same sale of real property; second, whether…”
Edmonson v. Popchoi, 256 P.3d 1223 (Wash. 2011). “This acceptance is conditional only on your confirmation that the tender was made in accordance with RCW 64.04.030 and cases interpreting it. I point this out because your letter referred to the tender of “the defense” to the action rather than a “right to defend” it.”
Mellor v. Chamberlin, 661 P.2d 996 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “RCW 64.04.030. [1] In May 1974, Mary Buckman, owner of the property to the north of the acquisition, contacted Mr.”
Buck Mountain Owners' Ass'n v. Prestwich, 308 P.3d 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “It concluded that Bentley-Prestwich’s obligation to share road maintenance costs did not constitute an “encumbrance” within the meaning of RCW 64.04.030, which requires the grantor of a statutory warranty deed to promise that the title being conveyed is free of encumbrances.”
Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 126 P.3d 16 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 64.04.030, which provides the form for a statutory warranty deed, states, like its predecessor statutes did, that a warranty deed substantially in the form provided and “ ‘duly executed, shall be deemed and held a conveyance in fee simple.”
Edmonson v. POPCHOI, 228 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 1 A statutory warranty deed incorporates the covenants defined in RCW 64.04.030. Csaba Kiss appeals the trial court's decision that he breached these covenants by conditioning acceptance of a defense tender upon his grantee's acknowledgement of his absolute right to settle a…”
South Kitsap Fam. Worship Ctr. v. Weir, 135 Wash. App. 900 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 64.04.030; 1C Kelly Kunsch, Washington Practice: Methods of Practice § 80.”
Edmonson v. Popchoi, 155 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶1 A statutory warranty deed incorporates the covenants defined in RCW 64.04.030. Csaba Kiss appeals the trial court’s decision that he breached these covenants by conditioning acceptance of a defense tender upon his grantee’s acknowledgement of his absolute right to settle a…”
Washington State Bar Ass'n v. Great W. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 586 P.2d 870 (Wash. 1978). “tween July 1, 1975 and December 31, 1975 in conditioning approval of its loan applications and assumption applications on the substitution of its agents for attorneys or others previously appointed by the parties to real estate transactions for *53 the purpose of drafting the…”
Washington State Grange v. Brandt, 148 P.3d 1069 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 64.04.030; [6] Brown, 130 Wash.2d at 437 , 924 P.”
Washington State Grange v. Brandt, 136 Wash. App. 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 64.04.030; 6 Brown, 130 Wn.2d at 437 .”
Foley v. Smith, 539 P.2d 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “RCW 64.04.030. 1 As RCW 64.04.030 shows on its face (see footnote 1, supra), the covenants thereby engrafted into the deed given by the Foleys to the Smiths included the covenants of warranty and of quiet enjoyment.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.030(2) — 2 cases
City Of Kent v. Bel Air & Briney, 358 P.3d 1249 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Ren Hoy Ye & Zhong Qiong Tan, V. Michael Labaz (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
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.