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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.060 (2026)

Costs and attorneys' fees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The superior court shall assess costs and reasonable attorneys' fees against a party who appeals the award and fails to improve his or her position on the trial de novo. The court may assess costs and reasonable attorneys' fees against a party who voluntarily withdraws a request for a trial de novo if the withdrawal is not requested in conjunction with the acceptance of an offer of compromise.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "costs and reasonable attorneys' fees" means those provided for by statute or court rule, or both, as well as all expenses related to expert witness testimony, that the court finds were reasonably necessary after the request for trial de novo has been filed.
(3) If the prevailing party in the arbitration also prevails at the trial de novo, even though at the trial de novo the appealing party may have improved his or her position from the arbitration, this section does not preclude the prevailing party from recovering those costs and disbursements otherwise allowed under chapter 4.84 RCW, for both actions.
[ 2002 c 339 s 2; 1979 c 103 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Brown, 159 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Brown, 159 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “140) or the arbitration costs and fees statute (RCW 7.06.060) — controls the award of costs and fees following an arbitration trial de novo under RCW 7.”
In Re Marriage of Brown, 247 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “140) or the arbitration costs and fees statute (RCW 7.06.060)—controls the award of costs and fees following an arbitration trial de novo under RCW 7.”
Berryman v. Metcalf, 312 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “Because the jury’s verdict exceeded Berryman’s offer of compromise, Farmers failed to improve its position at the trial de novo, and the trial court correctly determined that Berryman was entitled to an award of fees and costs.”
Christie-Lambert Van & Storage Co. v. McLeod, 693 P.2d 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 9× “3 and RCW 7.06.060 in a trial de novo on appeal from a mandatory arbitration award under RCW 7.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 6× “103, §§ 1-10. Mandatory arbitration is authorized by the legislature at the option of each county and applies to claims where the claimant limits the amount claimed to $50,000 or less.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 4× “00 in expert witness expenses pursuant to RCW 7.06.060 and MAR 7.3. In support of his motion, Niccum argued that Enquist had failed to *445 improve his position on trial de novo in relation to Niccum’s second offer of compromise.”
Miller v. Paul M. Wolff Co., 316 P.3d 1113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “¶20 RCW 7.06.060(1) and Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR) 7.”
Crossroads Mgmt., LLC v. Ridgway, 540 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 5× “The Ridgways sought attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.06.060, which authorizes fees “against a party who appeals the [arbitration] award and fails to improve his or her position on the trial de novo.”
Dolphus Mcgill v. James Beardon, 372 P.3d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “3 and RCW 7.06.060(1). McGill disagrees, claiming that Bearden does not meet the requirements of the rule and statute.”
Stedman v. Cooper, 292 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “The parties agree that Niccum applies “retroactively” or, perhaps better *24 stated, that it applies from the date of the enactment of RCW 7.06.060. This is because of the “fundamental rule of statutory construction that once a statute has been construed by the highest court of…”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “The legislature amended RCW 7.06.060 so that costs and reasonable attorney fees are now statutorily mandated in the event a party requests a trial de novo and fails to improve his or her position.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “[7] The legislature amended RCW 7.06.060 so that costs and reasonable attorney fees are now statutorily mandated in the event a party requests a trial de novo and fails to improve his or her position.”
Show all 62 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.060(1) — 32 cases
Berryman v. Metcalf, 312 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Because the jury’s verdict exceeded Berryman’s offer of compromise, Farmers failed to improve its position at the trial de novo, and the trial court correctly determined that Berryman was entitled to an award of fees and costs.”
Miller v. Paul M. Wolff Co., 316 P.3d 1113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶20 RCW 7.06.060(1) and Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR) 7.”
Dolphus Mcgill v. James Beardon, 372 P.3d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “3 and RCW 7.06.060(1). McGill disagrees, claiming that Bearden does not meet the requirements of the rule and statute.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). “103, §§ 1-10. Mandatory arbitration is authorized by the legislature at the option of each county and applies to claims where the claimant limits the amount claimed to $50,000 or less.”
In re the Marriage of Brown, 159 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “140) or the arbitration costs and fees statute (RCW 7.06.060) — controls the award of costs and fees following an arbitration trial de novo under RCW 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.060(2) — 1 case
Wall Street Apts., LLC v. All Star Prop. Mgmt., LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.060(3) — 5 cases
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). “103, §§ 1-10. Mandatory arbitration is authorized by the legislature at the option of each county and applies to claims where the claimant limits the amount claimed to $50,000 or less.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “00 in expert witness expenses pursuant to RCW 7.06.060 and MAR 7.3. In support of his motion, Niccum argued that Enquist had failed to *445 improve his position on trial de novo in relation to Niccum’s second offer of compromise.”
Dolphus Mcgill v. James Beardon, 372 P.3d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “3 and RCW 7.06.060(1). McGill disagrees, claiming that Bearden does not meet the requirements of the rule and statute.”
Crossroads Mgmt., LLC v. Ridgway, 540 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2023). “The Ridgways sought attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.06.060, which authorizes fees “against a party who appeals the [arbitration] award and fails to improve his or her position on the trial de novo.”
Soon Kim v. Lindsay Roger (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
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.