Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.32.240 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Without limiting the rights of any apartment owner, actions may be brought as provided by law and by the rules of court by the manager or board of directors, in either case in the discretion of the board of directors, on behalf of two or more of the apartment owners, as their respective interests may appear, with respect to any cause of action relating to the common areas and facilities or more than one apartment. Service of process on two or more apartment owners in any action relating to the common areas and facilities or more than one apartment may be made on the person designated in the declaration to receive service of process. Actions relating to the common areas and facilities for damages arising out of tortious conduct shall be maintained only against the association of apartment owners and any judgment lien or other charge resulting therefrom shall be deemed a common expense, which judgment lien or other charge shall be removed from any apartment and its percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities upon payment by the respective owner of his or her proportionate share thereof based on the percentage of undivided interest owned by such apartment owner.

[ 2012 c 117 s 204; 1963 c 156 s 24.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1982–1997 · leading case: Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Com. Grp., Inc., 745 P.2d 1284 (Wash. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Com. Grp., Inc., 745 P.2d 1284 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 7× “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Coldwell Banker acknowledges the Board's standing to sue on behalf of two or more individual condominium owners with similar claims pursuant to RCW 64.32.240. That statute provides, in part: Without limiting the rights of any apartment owner, actions may…”

Schwarzmann v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners, 655 P.2d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “Although there is no case law directly on point, RCW 64.32.240 and the corporate "business judgment rule" are closely related.”

Atherton Condo Apt.-owners Ass'n Bd of Directors v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1990). “*513 On January 3, 1986, pursuant to RCW 64.32.240, Owners filed suit against Blume, Westlin, and the City of Lynnwood and employees of its building department.”

Riss v. Angel, 131 Wash. 2d 612 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 64.32.240. Cases like Dutcher are not particularly helpful where the issue involves use of a lot owner’s land in the face of restrictive covenants, rather than commonly held areas.”

Riss v. Angel, 934 P.2d 669 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 64.32.240. Cases like Dutcher are not particularly helpful where the issue involves use of a lot owner's land in the face of restrictive covenants, rather than commonly held areas.”

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.