Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.52.080 (2026)

Order of sale or partition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If it be alleged in the complaint and established by evidence, or if it appear by the evidence without such allegation in the complaint, to the satisfaction of the court, that the property or any part of it, is so situated that partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners, the court may order a sale thereof, and for that purpose may appoint one or more referees. Otherwise, upon the requisite proofs being made, it shall decree a partition according to the respective rights of the parties as ascertained by the court, and appoint three referees, therefor, and shall designate the portion to remain undivided for the owners whose interests remain unknown or are not ascertained.
[Code 1881 s 559; 1877 p 118 s 564; 1869 p 134 s 512; RRS s 845.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Friend v. Friend, 964 P.2d 1219 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friend v. Friend, 964 P.2d 1219 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “After a hearing, the trial court granted the County’s motion, vacated the stipulated order, found that partition in kind resulted in great prejudice to the parties, and ordered partition by sale under RCW 7.52.080. Friend appeals, arguing that he has an absolute right to a…”
Ark Land Co. v. Harper, 599 S.E.2d 754 (W. Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “01-83 (Lexis 2000); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 7.52.080 (West 1992); Wis.”
Hamilton v. Huggins, 855 P.2d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the motion asked for the following relief: a finding (1) that the parties are joint owners of the real property; (2) that the real property is not susceptible to physical partition without great pecuniary loss to the parties; (3) that pursuant to RCW 7.52.080 2 the…”
Hegewald v. Neal, 582 P.2d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “The appointment of the referees is authorized by RCW 7.52.080 which provides: If it be alleged in the complaint and established by evidence, or if it appear by the evidence without such allegation in the complaint, to the satisfaction of the court, that the property or any part…”
Carr v. Harden, 660 P.2d 1139 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “The parties further stipulated *294 referees should be appointed pursuant to RCW 7.52.080 2 to either partition the property or find that partition cannot be made without great prejudice and report to the court as required by RCW 7.”
Steve Heitstuman v. Wayne Heitstuman (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Steve next contends that the trial court misinterpreted RCW 7.52.080 by dividing the real property in three equal shares without appointing referees to partition the land.”
Denise E. Ferry v. Robert L. Evans (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “FACTS Three siblings—Denise Ferry, Robert Evans, and Allison Evans—each own a one- third interest as tenants in common in a piece of waterfront property along Lake Sammamish (Waterfront Lot).”
Willis Marvin Lamb, Jr. v. Donna L. Crider (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “2d 1139 (1983); RCW 7.52.080. “In making the partition, the referees shall divide the property, and allot the several portions thereof to the respective parties, quality and quantity relatively considered.”
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.