Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.160 (2026)

Actions by and against the receiver or affecting property held by receiver

✓ 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 receiver has the right to sue and be sued in the receiver's capacity as such, without leave of court, in all cases necessary or proper for the conduct of the receivership. However, action seeking to dispossess the receiver of any estate property or otherwise to interfere with the receiver's management or control of any estate property may not be maintained or continued unless permitted by order of the court obtained upon notice and a hearing.
(2) Litigation by or against a receiver is adjunct to the receivership case. The clerk of the court shall assign a cause number that reflects the relationship of any litigation to the receivership case. All pleadings in adjunct litigation shall include the cause number of the receivership case as well as the adjunct litigation number assigned by the clerk of the court. All adjunct litigation shall be referred to the judge, if any, assigned to the receivership case.
(3) The receiver may be joined or substituted as a party in any suit or proceeding that was pending at the time of the receiver's appointment and in which the person over whose property the receiver is appointed is a party, upon application by the receiver to the court or agency before which the action is pending.
(4) Venue for adjunct litigation by or against the receiver shall lie in the court in which the receivership is pending, if the courts of this state have jurisdiction over the cause. Actions in other courts in this state shall be transferred to the court upon the receiver's filing of a motion for change of venue, provided that the receiver files the motion within thirty days following service of original process upon the receiver. However, actions in other courts or forums in which a state agency is a party shall not be transferred on request of the receiver absent consent of the affected state agency or grounds provided under other applicable law.
(5) Action by or against a receiver does not abate by reason of death or resignation of the receiver, but continues against the successor receiver or against the entity in receivership, if a successor receiver is not appointed.
(6) Whenever the assets of any domestic or foreign corporation, that has been doing business in this state, has been placed in the hands of any general receiver and the receiver is in possession of its assets, service of all process upon the corporation may be made upon the receiver.
(7) A judgment against a general receiver is not a lien on the property or funds of the receivership, nor shall any execution issue thereon, but upon entry of the judgment in the court in which a general receivership is pending, or upon filing in a general receivership of a certified copy of the judgment from another jurisdiction, the judgment shall be treated as an allowed claim in the receivership. A judgment against a custodial receiver shall be treated and has the same effect as a judgment against the person over whose property the receiver is appointed, except that the judgment is not enforceable against estate property unless otherwise ordered by the court upon notice and a hearing.
[ 2004 c 165 s 18.]

Notes:

PurposeCaptions not law2004 c 165: See notes following RCW 7.60.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Charles Feick, App V. The Brutsche Fam. Revoc. Trust, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “Feick filed a motion to reconsider pursuant to CR 59, arguing that the superior court erred in failing to assign an adjunct case number to Feick’s action as required by RCW 7.60.160(2). Feick appeared to argue that because there was no adjunct case number assigned and no stay of…”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “” 4 According to Johansen, due to this “bona fide dispute,” Revitalization was required to bring an adjunct proceeding under RCW 7.60.160 instead of moving for turnover pursuant to RCW 7.”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “” 4 According to Johansen, due to this “bona fide dispute,” Revitalization was required to bring an adjunct proceeding under RCW 7.60.160 instead of moving for turnover pursuant to RCW 7.”
In The Receivership Of: Applied Restoration, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “070, Andersen was required to turn over the property to Revitalization “unless there exist[ed] a bona fide dispute with respect to the existence or nature of the receiver’s interest in the property, in which case turnover shall be sought by means of an action under RCW…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.160(1) — 2 cases
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” 4 According to Johansen, due to this “bona fide dispute,” Revitalization was required to bring an adjunct proceeding under RCW 7.60.160 instead of moving for turnover pursuant to RCW 7.”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” 4 According to Johansen, due to this “bona fide dispute,” Revitalization was required to bring an adjunct proceeding under RCW 7.60.160 instead of moving for turnover pursuant to RCW 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.160(2) — 3 cases
Charles Feick, App V. The Brutsche Fam. Revoc. Trust, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Feick filed a motion to reconsider pursuant to CR 59, arguing that the superior court erred in failing to assign an adjunct case number to Feick’s action as required by RCW 7.60.160(2). Feick appeared to argue that because there was no adjunct case number assigned and no stay of…”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” 4 According to Johansen, due to this “bona fide dispute,” Revitalization was required to bring an adjunct proceeding under RCW 7.60.160 instead of moving for turnover pursuant to RCW 7.”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” 4 According to Johansen, due to this “bona fide dispute,” Revitalization was required to bring an adjunct proceeding under RCW 7.60.160 instead of moving for turnover pursuant to RCW 7.”
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.