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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050 (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) Following a hearing as prescribed by court rule, the arbitrator shall file his or her decision and award with the clerk of the superior court, together with proof of service thereof on the parties. Within twenty days after such filing, any aggrieved party may file with the clerk a written notice of appeal and request for a trial de novo in the superior court on all issues of law and fact. The notice must be signed by the party. Such trial de novo shall thereupon be held, including a right to jury, if demanded.
(a) Up to thirty days prior to the actual date of a trial de novo, a nonappealing party may serve upon the appealing party a written offer of compromise.
(b) In any case in which an offer of compromise is not accepted by the appealing party within ten calendar days after service thereof, for purposes of MAR 7.3, the amount of the offer of compromise shall replace the amount of the arbitrator's award for determining whether the party appealing the arbitrator's award has failed to improve that party's position on the trial de novo.
(c) A postarbitration offer of compromise shall not be filed or communicated to the court or the trier of fact until after judgment on the trial de novo, at which time a copy of the offer of compromise shall be filed for purposes of determining whether the party who appealed the arbitrator's award has failed to improve that party's position on the trial de novo, pursuant to MAR 7.3.
(2) If no appeal has been filed at the expiration of twenty days following filing of the arbitrator's decision and award, a judgment shall be entered and may be presented to the court by any party, on notice, which judgment when entered shall have the same force and effect as judgments in civil actions.
[ 2018 c 36 s 6; 2011 c 336 s 164; 2002 c 339 s 1; 1982 c 188 s 2; 1979 c 103 s 5.]

Notes:

Applicability—Effective date—2018 c 36: See notes following RCW 7.06.043.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 12× “" RCW 7.06.050 (emphasis added). [6] A party who fails to improve his or her position at the trial de novo must pay the other side's costs and reasonable attorney fees.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 15× “DYRESON, and pursuant to RCW 7.06.050 does hereby offer to compromise his claim in the amount of $22,000.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 11× “Division One reversed the trial court and held the clear language of RCW 7.06.050 allowing review of all issues of law and fact set the “minimum scope of issues” available to a trial court.”
Hernandez v. Stender, 358 P.3d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “280 shares similar language with RCW 7.06.050, stating that “[o]ffers of settlement shall not *57 be filed or communicated to the trier of.”
Do v. Farmer, 110 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
Do v. Farmer, 127 Wash. App. 180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
Perkins Coie v. Williams, 929 P.2d 1215 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “I Partial Trial De Novo Richard and Chris Williams argue that the mandatory *736 arbitration statute, RCW 7.06.050, bars a request for a trial de novo of less than all issues and parties to the arbitration proceeding.”
Kim v. Pham, 975 P.2d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 7× “2 *442 RCW 7.06.050 states: Decision and award—Appeals—Trial—Judgment Following a hearing as prescribed by court rule, the arbitrator shall file his decision and award with the clerk of the superior court, together with proof of service thereof on the parties.”
Kim v. Pham, 975 P.2d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 7× “[2] RCW 7.06.050 states: Decision and award — Appeals — Trial — Judgment Following a hearing as prescribed by court rule, the arbitrator shall file his decision and award with the clerk of the superior court, together with proof of service thereof on the parties.”
Crossroads Mgmt., LLC v. Ridgway, 540 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 5× “Specifically, we must answer whether a party’s failure to personally sign a trial de novo request invalidates the request and, if so, whether in the absence of a trial de novo, a party may appeal a prearbitration order granting partial summary judgment.”
Berryman v. Metcalf, 312 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “¶63 Thus, the present case brings us to a crossroads of sorts. Whereas the Supreme Court has cautioned that multipliers should be reserved for rare instances, the argument Berryman’s attorneys presented to the trial court suggests that multipliers should always be awarded when…”
Roberts v. Johnson, 969 P.2d 446 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.06.050 provides: Following a hearing as prescribed by court rule, the arbitrator shall file his decision and award with the clerk of the superior court, together with proof of service thereof on the parties.”
Show all 114 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(1) — 28 cases
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). “Division One reversed the trial court and held the clear language of RCW 7.06.050 allowing review of all issues of law and fact set the “minimum scope of issues” available to a trial court.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “DYRESON, and pursuant to RCW 7.06.050 does hereby offer to compromise his claim in the amount of $22,000.”
Crossroads Mgmt., LLC v. Ridgway, 540 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2023). “Specifically, we must answer whether a party’s failure to personally sign a trial de novo request invalidates the request and, if so, whether in the absence of a trial de novo, a party may appeal a prearbitration order granting partial summary judgment.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). “" RCW 7.06.050 (emphasis added). [6] A party who fails to improve his or her position at the trial de novo must pay the other side's costs and reasonable attorney fees.”
Seto v. Am. Elevator, Inc., 154 P.3d 189 (Wash. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(1)(a) — 2 cases
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). “" RCW 7.06.050 (emphasis added). [6] A party who fails to improve his or her position at the trial de novo must pay the other side's costs and reasonable attorney fees.”
Kathleen Hanson, V. Jose Luna-ramirez, 496 P.3d 314 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(1)(b) — 12 cases
Do v. Farmer, 110 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “DYRESON, and pursuant to RCW 7.06.050 does hereby offer to compromise his claim in the amount of $22,000.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012).
Hernandez v. Stender, 358 P.3d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “280 shares similar language with RCW 7.06.050, stating that “[o]ffers of settlement shall not *57 be filed or communicated to the trier of.”
Nelson v. Erickson, 377 P.3d 196 (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(1)(c) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Stender, 358 P.3d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “280 shares similar language with RCW 7.06.050, stating that “[o]ffers of settlement shall not *57 be filed or communicated to the trier of.”
Do v. Farmer, 110 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(2) — 10 cases
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “DYRESON, and pursuant to RCW 7.06.050 does hereby offer to compromise his claim in the amount of $22,000.”
Alvarez v. Banach, 153 Wash. 2d 834 (Wash. 2005).
Alvarez v. Banach, 109 P.3d 402 (Wash. 2005).
Mercier v. GEICO Indem. Co., 139 Wash. App. 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Brackman v. City of Lake Forest Park, 163 Wash. App. 889 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(c) — 1 case
Do v. Farmer, 110 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(l)(a) — 3 cases
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). “Division One reversed the trial court and held the clear language of RCW 7.06.050 allowing review of all issues of law and fact set the “minimum scope of issues” available to a trial court.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012).
Gautam v. Hicks, 310 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(l)(b) — 5 cases
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “DYRESON, and pursuant to RCW 7.06.050 does hereby offer to compromise his claim in the amount of $22,000.”
Berryman v. Metcalf, 312 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶63 Thus, the present case brings us to a crossroads of sorts. Whereas the Supreme Court has cautioned that multipliers should be reserved for rare instances, the argument Berryman’s attorneys presented to the trial court suggests that multipliers should always be awarded when…”
Do v. Farmer, 127 Wash. App. 180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
Gautam v. Hicks, 310 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Monnastes v. Greenwood, 283 P.3d 603 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.050(l)(c) — 2 cases
Do v. Farmer, 127 Wash. App. 180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3 and RCW 7.06.050. The trial court denied the motion.”
Jenbere v. Lassek, 279 P.3d 969 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
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.