Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.083 (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) A party who prevails against the holder of record title at the time an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession was filed, or against a subsequent purchaser from such holder, may be required to:
(a) Reimburse such holder or purchaser for part or all of any taxes or assessments levied on the real property during the period the prevailing party was in possession of the real property in question and which are proven by competent evidence to have been paid by such holder or purchaser; and
(b) Pay to the treasurer of the county in which the real property is located part or all of any taxes or assessments levied on the real property after the filing of the adverse possession claim and which are due and remain unpaid at the time judgment on the claim is entered.
(2) If the court orders reimbursement for taxes or assessments paid or payment of taxes or assessments due under subsection (1) of this section, the court shall determine how to allocate taxes or assessments between the property acquired by adverse possession and the property retained by the titleholder. In making its determination, the court shall consider all the facts and shall order such reimbursement or payment as appears equitable and just.
(3) The prevailing party in an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession may request the court to award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The court may award all or a portion of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if, after considering all the facts, the court determines such an award is equitable and just.
[ 2011 c 255 s 1.]

Notes:

Application—2011 c 255: "This act applies to actions filed on or after July 1, 2012." [ 2011 c 255 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Stuart Mccoll v. Geoffrey Anderson, 429 P.3d 1113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stuart Mccoll v. Geoffrey Anderson, 429 P.3d 1113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 14× “The court also awarded Anderson attorney fees under RCW 7.28.083(3), which gives the trial court discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in “an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession.”
Joseph Workman v. Jerald F. Klinkenberg, 430 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “77105-1-1/15 RCW 7.28.083(3) provides: The prevailing party in an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession may request the court to award costs and reasonable attorneys'fees.”
Sw. Suburban Sewer Dist., V. Brett L. Fish (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 17× “Workman did not argue that RCW 7.28.083 did not authorize attorney fees for prescriptive easement claims.”
David L. Snyder, et ux v. Lance Campbell, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 15× “The statute allows, that being RCW 7.28.083, the prevailing party an award of attorney fees.”
Eric Rasmussen & Janice Rasmussen, Respondent's/cross-app v. Rodney & Sandra Rich, App/cross-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “The trial court also dismissed the Riches’ mutual recognition and acquiescence counterclaim with prejudice and awarded the Rasmussens attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.28.083(3). The Riches filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing, among other things, that the trial court…”
Robert J. Conklin, V. Marcia Bentz (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 12× “54109-2-II We hold that (1) the trial court did not err in finding an implied easement because the express easement for use of the drainfield was invalid, (2) the trial court did not err when it dismissed Conklin’s nuisance claim, (3) the trial court erred in awarding attorney…”
Paula S. Neis v. Howard Woollett, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “In doing so, the Court noted that “there is not an entitlement to attorney fees pursuant to RCW 7.28.083” and found that “[a]ttorney fees are not necessary or appropriate and would not be equitable or just in this case.”
Alaska Nw Indus., Inc., Resp/cross-app V. Ann R. Deutscher, App/cross-resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “Statutory Construction The Bergs argue that a party may not prevail within the meaning of RCW 7.28.083 if they lose title to some portion of property by adverse possession.”
Paula S. Neis v. Howard Woollett, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “The Frasers argue that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it found that RCW 7.28.083 did not entitle them to attorney fees.”
Paul Michel, Et Ano, V. City Of Seattle, 498 P.3d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “1 and RCW 7.28.083(3). Because they do not prevail, we deny their request.”
Wesley R. Hannigan, V Vit & Zdenka Novak (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “The trial court awarded attorney fees to Hannigan, but did not state a legal basis for the award in its oral ruling, conclusions of law, or judgment.”
Lingering Pine Investments, Llc, Resp v. Rupesh & Suzy Khendry, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “In July 2018, LPI moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) an easement that has not been used may not be extinguished by adverse possession, and (2) it was entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to RCW 7.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.083(1)(a) — 1 case
Arthur Hyatt, V. Michael A. Owens & Angelo Tsoukalas (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.083(3) — 55 cases
Stuart Mccoll v. Geoffrey Anderson, 429 P.3d 1113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “The court also awarded Anderson attorney fees under RCW 7.28.083(3), which gives the trial court discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in “an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession.”
Joseph Workman v. Jerald F. Klinkenberg, 430 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “77105-1-1/15 RCW 7.28.083(3) provides: The prevailing party in an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession may request the court to award costs and reasonable attorneys'fees.”
Sw. Suburban Sewer Dist., V. Brett L. Fish (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Workman did not argue that RCW 7.28.083 did not authorize attorney fees for prescriptive easement claims.”
Eric Rasmussen & Janice Rasmussen, Respondent's/cross-app v. Rodney & Sandra Rich, App/cross-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The trial court also dismissed the Riches’ mutual recognition and acquiescence counterclaim with prejudice and awarded the Rasmussens attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.28.083(3). The Riches filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing, among other things, that the trial court…”
Robert J. Conklin, V. Marcia Bentz (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “54109-2-II We hold that (1) the trial court did not err in finding an implied easement because the express easement for use of the drainfield was invalid, (2) the trial court did not err when it dismissed Conklin’s nuisance claim, (3) the trial court erred in awarding attorney…”
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.