Wash. Rev. Code » Title 65 · Chapter 65.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 65.08.030 (2026)

Recorded irregular instrument imparts notice

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An instrument in writing purporting to convey or encumber real estate or any interest therein, which has been recorded in the auditor's office of the county in which the real estate is situated, although the instrument may not have been executed and acknowledged in accordance with the law in force at the time of its execution, shall impart the same notice to third persons, from the date of recording, as if the instrument had been executed, acknowledged, and recorded, in accordance with the laws regulating the execution, acknowledgment, and recording of the instrument then in force.
(2) A tangible copy of an electronic record purporting to convey or encumber real estate or any interest therein, which has been recorded in the auditor's office of the county in which the real estate is situated, although the tangible copy may not have been certified by a notarial officer in accordance with RCW 42.45.020(3), imparts the same notice to third persons, from the date of recording, as if the tangible copy had been so certified.
[ 2019 c 154 s 8; 1953 c 115 s 1. Prior: 1929 c 33 s 8; RRS s 10599.]

Notes:

Effective date—2019 c 154: See note following RCW 42.45.280.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1975–2019 · leading case: Lake Arrowhead Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Looney, 770 P.2d 1046 (Wash. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lake Arrowhead Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Looney, 770 P.2d 1046 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 8× “The statute, RCW 65.08.030, relied upon by the dissent, was never cited by anyone, in briefs or oral argument.”
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Erickson, 367 P.3d 1063 (Wash. 2016). “In addition, Erickson had record notice based on RCW 65.08.030, which states that an improperly acknowledged deed that is recorded 12 “shall impart the same notice to third persons” as if it were properly acknowledged.”
Murphy v. City of Seattle, 647 P.2d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The common thread which runs through these cases is the principle that our recording statute, RCW 65.08.030 et seq., protects parties and their successors who agree to restrict the use of land from subsequent purchasers of the land who wish to escape the burden of the…”
Leighton v. Leonard, 589 P.2d 279 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “RCW 65.08.030 provides: An instrument in writing purporting to convey or encumber real estate or any interest therein, which has been recorded in the auditor's office of the county in which the real estate is situated, although the instrument may not have been executed and…”
Dunham v. Tabb, 621 P.2d 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “The defendant argues that the lis pendens was sufficient to put the plaintiffs on inquiry notice under RCW 65.08.030. That statute provides: An instrument in writing purporting to convey or encumber real estate or any interest therein, which has been recorded in the auditor's…”
Thorstad v. Fed. Way Water & Sewer Dist., 870 P.2d 1046 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “]” The parties agree that these covenants were properly recorded pursuant to RCW 65.08.030, but dispute the effect of the recording.”
Bank of Pullman v. Shurtleff, 93 Wash. App. 282 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Also, the Bank argued that *286 deed was not properly delivered and that it could not be considered merely irregular for purposes of RCW 65.08.030. The trial court concluded the deed between Mr.”
Thomas v. Osborn, 536 P.2d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “We cannot read into the instrument an unmanifested intent of the parties.”
In Re Smith, 968 P.2d 904 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Also, the Bank argued that deed was not properly delivered and that it could not be considered merely irregular for purposes of RCW 65.08.030. The trial court concluded the deed between Mr.”
Genesee, Inc. v. Firstline Inv., Inc., 740 P.2d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Relying on RCW 65.08.030, 1 they argue that the fact that the easement was not acknowledged is irrelevant because the County still had notice of their "recorded interest," and could have notified them.”
OneWest Bank FSB v. Erickson (Wash. 2016). “In addition, Erickson had record notice based on RCW 65.08.030, which states that an improperly acknowledged deed that is recorded 12 "shall impart the same notice to third persons" as if it were properly acknowledged.”
In re Petition for Vulnerable Adult Order of Prot. of: Helen Krinke (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “030 (“An instrument in writing purporting to convey or encumber real estate or any interest therein, which has been recorded in the auditor’s office of the county in which the real estate is situated, although the instrument may not have been executed and acknowledged in…”
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.