Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.06
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.020 (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) All civil actions, except for appeals from municipal or district courts, which are at issue in the superior court in counties which have authorized arbitration, where the sole relief sought is a money judgment, and where no party asserts a claim in excess of fifteen thousand dollars, or if approved by the superior court of a county by two-thirds or greater vote of the judges thereof, up to one hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, are subject to civil arbitration.
(2) If approved by majority vote of the superior court judges of a county which has authorized arbitration, all civil actions which are at issue in the superior court in which the sole relief sought is the establishment, termination, or modification of maintenance or child support payments are subject to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrability of any such action shall not be affected by the amount or number of payments involved.
[ 2018 c 36 s 2; 2005 c 472 s 2. Prior: 1987 c 212 s 101; 1987 c 202 s 127; 1985 c 265 s 3; 1982 c 188 s 1; 1979 c 103 s 2.]

Notes:

Rules of court: MAR 1.2.
Applicability—Effective date—2018 c 36: See notes following RCW 7.06.043.
Application—2005 c 472 s 2: "Section 2 of this act applies to any case in which a notice of arbitrability is filed on or after July 24, 2005." [ 2005 c 472 s 3.]
Effective date—1987 c 212 ss 101 and 102: "Sections 101 and 102 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1988." [ 1987 c 212 s 1902.]
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Brown, 247 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Brown, 247 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.06.020 further indicates that the legislature specifically intended that the arbitration statute— and thus its fees provision—would apply to the spousal maintenance context.”
In re the Marriage of Brown, 159 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.06.020 further indicates that the legislature specifically intended that the arbitration statute — and thus its fees provision — would apply to the spousal maintenance context.”
Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wash. 2d 804 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to RCW 7.06.020(1), the suit was transferred by the superior court to mandatory arbitration.”
Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 947 P.2d 721 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to RCW 7.06.020(1), the suit was transferred by the superior court to mandatory arbitration.”
In re the Marriage of Leslie, 954 P.2d 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “This provision governs the range of civil actions subject to mandatory arbitration under RCW 7.06.020, which permits superior court judges in a county to subject child support modification proceedings to mandatory arbitration by majority vote.”
Twitchell v. Kerrigan, 306 P.3d 1025 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “We hold that in determining whether a civil action is subject to arbitration under RCW 7.06.020 and the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR), the court must consider whether the claim of each party exceeds the monetary limit, and that a request to file a postjudgment warrant of…”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). “06 RCW provides the statutory authorization for superior courts to require arbitration for small claims.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). “06 RCW provides the statutory authorization for superior courts to require arbitration for small claims.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “See RCW 7.06.020. The arbitrator awarded Niccum a total of $24,496, consisting of $6,896 for medical expenses, $7,600 for lost wages, and $10,000 for pain and suffering.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 7.06.020(1). 4 RCW 4.84.290 states, “[T]he prevailing party on appeal shall be considered the prevailing party for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.”
Christie-Lambert Van & Storage Co. v. McLeod, 693 P.2d 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “06 (the act) provides for a county's authorization of mandatory arbitration of civil actions brought in the superior court where the sole relief sought is a money judgment and no claim exceeds $10,000 or, upon a county's superior court approval, $15,000, exclusive of interest…”
Fisher v. Allstate Ins., 136 Wash. 2d 240 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 7.06.020. The judgment sought by Fisher exceeded $35,000.”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.020(1) — 19 cases
Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wash. 2d 804 (Wash. 1997). “Pursuant to RCW 7.06.020(1), the suit was transferred by the superior court to mandatory arbitration.”
Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 947 P.2d 721 (Wash. 1997). “Pursuant to RCW 7.06.020(1), the suit was transferred by the superior court to mandatory arbitration.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). “06 RCW provides the statutory authorization for superior courts to require arbitration for small claims.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). “06 RCW provides the statutory authorization for superior courts to require arbitration for small claims.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 7.06.020(1). 4 RCW 4.84.290 states, “[T]he prevailing party on appeal shall be considered the prevailing party for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.020(2) — 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Leslie, 954 P.2d 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “This provision governs the range of civil actions subject to mandatory arbitration under RCW 7.06.020, which permits superior court judges in a county to subject child support modification proceedings to mandatory arbitration by majority vote.”
In Re the Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Leslie v. Verhey, 954 P.2d 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Trina A., Wherry v. David B. Ratner (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.