Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 65.04.030 (2026)
Instruments to be recorded or filed
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The auditor or recording officer must, upon the payment of the fees as required in RCW 36.18.010 for the same, acknowledge receipt therefor in writing or printed form and record in large and well bound books, or by photographic, photomechanical, electronic format, or other approved process, the following:
(1) Deeds, grants and transfers of real property, mortgages and releases of mortgages of real estate, instruments or agreements relating to community or separate property, powers of attorney to convey real estate, and leases which have been acknowledged or proved: PROVIDED, That deeds, contracts and mortgages of real estate described by lot and block and addition or plat, shall not be filed or recorded until the plat of such addition has been filed and made a matter of record;
(2) Patents to lands and receivers' receipts, whether for mineral, timber, homestead or preemption claims or cash entries;
(3) All such other papers or writing as are required by law to be recorded and such as are required by law to be filed.
[ 1996 c 229 s 2; 1991 c 26 s 4; 1985 c 44 s 15; 1967 c 98 s 1; 1919 c 182 s 1; 1893 c 119 s 11; Code 1881 s 2727; 1865 p 26 s 1; RRS s 10601.]
Notes:
Claim of spouse or domestic partner in community realty to be filed: RCW 26.16.100.
Purchaser of community realty protected by record title: RCW 26.16.095.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Berg v. Ting, 886 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1995).
Berg v. Ting, 886 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1995). “Under that provision, the grant of easement was not entitled to be recorded because it described lots in a short plat not yet in existence, much less approved and recorded.”
Robroy Land Co. v. Prather, 622 P.2d 367 (Wash. 1980). “) The Washington recording act, RCW Title 65, and particularly RCW 65.04.030, 3 seems not only broad enough to accommodate recordation of preemptive agreements, but in this instance both the agreement and its assignment were recorded by the Thurston County Auditor.”
Wilhelm v. Beyersdorf, 100 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The remaining questions are whether the Featherman easement applies to the portion of the original Featherman estate that was eventually sold to the Beyersdorfs, and whether the trial court properly reformed the easement to conform to the road used by Ms.”
Wilhelm v. Beyersdorf, 999 P.2d 54 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “*59 The remaining questions are whether the Featherman easement applies to the portion of the original Featherman estate that was eventually sold to the Beyersdorfs, and whether the trial court properly reformed the easement to conform to the road used by Ms.”
Land Title of Walla Walla, Inc. v. Martin, 70 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “045(l)(b) requires: “The top left-hand side of the page shall contain the name and address to whom the instrument will be returned.” The statute also provides that the wording on the first page of the instrument should state, ‘When Recorded Return to:” with a blank line left…”
Land Title of Walla Walla, Inc. v. Martin, 70 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “045(1)(b) requires: "The top left-hand side of the page shall contain the name and address to whom the instrument will be returned." The statute also provides that the wording on the first page of the instrument should state, "When Recorded Return to:" with a blank line left…”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n Of Wa, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The Document Recording Surcharge Is an Excise Tax BIAW argues that the document recording surcharge is a property tax because certain documents associated with property ownership are required to be recorded under RCW 65.04.030, and owners must record their deeds to protect their…”
Nieman (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” Wash. Rev. Code § 65.04.030 . 2 Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title under Washington Revised Code § 7.”
Jose Diaz v. Eric Hsueh (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “ln a similar vein, Diaz argues that the Association and First Horizon were required to record their stipulation because it was a “conveyance of real property” under RCW 65.08.070. Even if the stipulation had been recorded, he contends it would have had no legal effect because it…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 65.04.030(1): 4 cases
Berg v. Ting, 886 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1995). “Under that provision, the grant of easement was not entitled to be recorded because it described lots in a short plat not yet in existence, much less approved and recorded.”
Wilhelm v. Beyersdorf, 100 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The remaining questions are whether the Featherman easement applies to the portion of the original Featherman estate that was eventually sold to the Beyersdorfs, and whether the trial court properly reformed the easement to conform to the road used by Ms.”
Wilhelm v. Beyersdorf, 999 P.2d 54 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “*59 The remaining questions are whether the Featherman easement applies to the portion of the original Featherman estate that was eventually sold to the Beyersdorfs, and whether the trial court properly reformed the easement to conform to the road used by Ms.”
Jose Diaz v. Eric Hsueh (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “ln a similar vein, Diaz argues that the Association and First Horizon were required to record their stipulation because it was a “conveyance of real property” under RCW 65.08.070. Even if the stipulation had been recorded, he contends it would have had no legal effect because it…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 65.04.030(3): 1 case
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n Of Wa, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The Document Recording Surcharge Is an Excise Tax BIAW argues that the document recording surcharge is a property tax because certain documents associated with property ownership are required to be recorded under RCW 65.04.030, and owners must record their deeds to protect their…”
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.