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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.52.090 (2026)

Partition, how made

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
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, according to the respective rights of the parties as determined by the court, designating the several portions by proper landmarks, and may employ a surveyor with the necessary assistants to aid them therein. The referees shall make a report of their proceedings, specifying therein the manner of executing their trust, describing the property divided and the shares allotted to each party, with a particular description of each share.
[Code 1881 s 560; 1877 p 118 s 565; 1869 p 134 s 513; RRS s 846.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Carr v. Harden, 660 P.2d 1139 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carr v. Harden, 660 P.2d 1139 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “In this partition action, the issue is whether RCW 7.52.090 1 requires individual referees to submit written reports showing any disagreement with the referees' majority report.”
Griffith v. Sherry, 158 Wash. App. 69 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Our own review reveals that some of the language emphasized by Barbara appears in the partition statute, chapter 7.”
Carson v. Willstadter, 830 P.2d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 7.52.090. The court may confirm or set aside the report in whole or in part.”
In Re Est. of Sherry, 240 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Our own review reveals that some of the language emphasized by Barbara appears in the partition statute, chapter 7.”
Steve Heitstuman v. Wayne Heitstuman (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “He also contends the court erred in failing to account for his capital contributions to the property and in failing to consider the relative "quality and quantity" of the property under RCW 7.52.090. Finding no error, we affirm.”
Willis Marvin Lamb, Jr. v. Donna L. Crider (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” RCW 7.52.090. The court has the discretion to “confirm or set aside the [referee’s] report in whole or in part.”
Catherine Stotzky, Res/cross-app. v. Fabienne L. Riggers, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “16 If the trial court based its ruling on “an erroneous view of the law,” it abused its discretion.”
Andrey Germanovich v. Taisia Moga (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.52.090. If a partition cannot be made without great prejudice, a court may also order sale of the land.”
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.