Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.28.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every interest created in favor of two or more persons in their own right is an interest in common, unless acquired by them in partnership, for partnership purposes, or unless declared in its creation to be a joint tenancy, as provided in RCW 64.28.010, or unless acquired by executors or trustees.
(2) Interests in common held in the names of both spouses or both domestic partners, whether or not in conjunction with others, are presumed to be their community property.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section applies as of June 9, 1988, to all existing or subsequently created interests in common.
[ 2008 c 6 s 626; 1988 c 29 s 10; 1961 c 2 s 2 (Initiative Measure No. 208, approved November 8, 1960).]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: In Re Est. of Olson, 557 P.2d 302 (Wash. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Est. of Olson, 557 P.2d 302 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “See also RCW 64.28.020. [2] The promissory note and real estate mortgage in the present case do not meet these requirements and therefore they were insufficient to create a joint tenancy.”
Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 547 P.2d 1240 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “ferred to in the preceding paragraph [three small claims] to convey to Sunshine an undivided fifty per cent (50%) interest in and to the Surprise [ sic ] Group, with unlimited right of ingress and egress, both on the surface and underground, together with a fifty per cent (50%)…”
In re the Dom. P'ship of Walsh, 335 P.3d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “We also agree with Reynolds, however, that because of the parties’ existing “equity relationship,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the value of the property as it did.”
Falaschi v. Yowell, 601 P.2d 989 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Falaschi's contention is that, under the law of real property, Yowell and the Cassidys were "tenants in common," and they never did own or have an interest in joint property; they shared an "interest in common," pursuant to RCW 64.”
Wiswall v. Tanner (In Re Tanner), 145 B.R. 672 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1992). “RCW 64.28.020. Tanner and Russell lived together in the house, with each contributing to make payments and sharing expenses.”
United States v. Omdahl, 104 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1997). “Wash. Rev. Code § 64.28.020 (1). Thus, the burden is on Appellants to show that a partnership existed.”
Reilly v. Sageser, 467 P.2d 358 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “This is-also the result under RCW 64.28.020, which provides: • Every interest created in favor of two or more persons in their own right is an interest in common, unless acquired by them in partnership, for partnership purposes, or unless declared in its creation to be a joint…”
Elmer Wagner, App-cross Resp v. Jill Wright, Resp-cross App (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “She argues that under RCW64.28.020, any interest created in favor of two or more persons is an interest in common unless acquired by a partnership or declared to be a joint 16 No.”
In the Matter of the Est. of Helen Louise Giorgi Grimsley Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 64.28.020(1). Absent ouster, a cotenant in possession is not liable to other cotenants for rent unless there is an agreement otherwise.”
Anna Schemstad v. Robert J. Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 64.28.020. A joint tenancy however, may be created through an express written agreement by the owner or owners of property.”
William G. Pardee, Apps v. Evergreen Shores Beach Club, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “They contend that the ESBC board members have acted negligently by ignoring the governing documents that prohibit the regatta.”
Flavio Faustino Leija v. Angela Garcia-Leija (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The trial court thus required Garcia-Leija to pay Leija his 40 percent share of their 50 percent interest, which amounted to $117,000. 4 No. 57487-0-II ANALYSIS I.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.28.020(1) — 4 cases
In the Matter of the Est. of Helen Louise Giorgi Grimsley Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 64.28.020(1). Absent ouster, a cotenant in possession is not liable to other cotenants for rent unless there is an agreement otherwise.”
William G. Pardee, Apps v. Evergreen Shores Beach Club, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “They contend that the ESBC board members have acted negligently by ignoring the governing documents that prohibit the regatta.”
Flavio Faustino Leija v. Angela Garcia-Leija (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The trial court thus required Garcia-Leija to pay Leija his 40 percent share of their 50 percent interest, which amounted to $117,000. 4 No. 57487-0-II ANALYSIS I.”
David W. Coon, V Spirit D. Cooper (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.