Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.220 (2026)
Objection to and allowance of claims
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) At any time prior to the entry of an order approving the general receiver's final report, the general receiver or any party in interest may file with the court an objection to a claim, which objection must be in writing and must set forth the grounds for the objection. A copy of the objection, together with notice of hearing, must be mailed to the creditor at least thirty days prior to the hearing. Claims properly served upon the general receiver and not disallowed by the court are entitled to share in distributions from the estate in accordance with the priorities provided for by this chapter or otherwise by law.
(2) Upon the request of a creditor, the general receiver, or any party in interest objecting to the creditor's claim, or upon order of the court, an objection is subject to mediation prior to adjudication of the objection, under the rules or orders adopted or issued with respect to mediations. However, state claims are not subject to mediation absent agreement of the state.
(3) Upon motion of the general receiver or other party in interest, the following claims may be estimated for purpose of allowance under this section under the rules or orders applicable to the estimation of claims under this subsection:
(a) Any contingent or unliquidated claim, the fixing or liquidation of which, as the case may be, would unduly delay the administration of the case; or
(b) Any right to payment arising from a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance.
Claims subject to this subsection shall be allowed in the estimated amount thereof.
[ 2004 c 165 s 24.]
Notes:
Purpose—Captions not law—2004 c 165: See notes following RCW 7.60.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2016–2016 · leading case: Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In particular, they claim that RCW 7.60.220(1) prohibits the trial court from terminating a receivership until all properly served claims have either been satisfied or affirmatively disallowed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.220(1) — 1 case
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In particular, they claim that RCW 7.60.220(1) prohibits the trial court from terminating a receivership until all properly served claims have either been satisfied or affirmatively disallowed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.220(2) — 1 case
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In particular, they claim that RCW 7.60.220(1) prohibits the trial court from terminating a receivership until all properly served claims have either been satisfied or affirmatively disallowed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.220(3) — 1 case
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In particular, they claim that RCW 7.60.220(1) prohibits the trial court from terminating a receivership until all properly served claims have either been satisfied or affirmatively disallowed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.220(3)(a) — 1 case
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In particular, they claim that RCW 7.60.220(1) prohibits the trial court from terminating a receivership until all properly served claims have either been satisfied or affirmatively disallowed.”
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.