Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230 (2026)
Priorities
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Allowed claims in a general receivership shall receive distribution under this chapter in the order of priority under (a) through (h) of this subsection and, with the exception of (a) and (c) of this subsection, on a pro rata basis.
(a) Creditors with liens on property of the estate, which liens are duly perfected under applicable law, shall receive the proceeds from the disposition of their collateral. However, the receiver may recover from property securing an allowed secured claim the reasonable, necessary expenses of preserving, protecting, or disposing of the property to the extent of any benefit to the creditors. If and to the extent that the proceeds are less than the amount of a creditor's allowed claim or a creditor's lien is avoided on any basis, the creditor is an unsecured claim under (h) of this subsection. Secured claims shall be paid from the proceeds in accordance with their respective priorities under otherwise applicable law.
(b) Actual, necessary costs and expenses incurred during the administration of the estate, other than those expenses allowable under (a) of this subsection, including allowed fees and reimbursement of reasonable charges and expenses of the receiver and professional persons employed by the receiver under RCW 7.60.180. Notwithstanding (a) of this subsection, expenses incurred during the administration of the estate have priority over the secured claim of any creditor obtaining or consenting to the appointment of the receiver.
(c) Creditors with liens on property of the estate, which liens have not been duly perfected under applicable law, shall receive the proceeds from the disposition of their collateral if and to the extent that unsecured claims are made subject to those liens under applicable law.
(d) Claims for wages, salaries, or commissions, including vacation, severance, and sick leave pay, or contributions to an employee benefit plan, earned by the claimant within one hundred eighty days of the date of appointment of the receiver or the cessation of the estate's business, whichever occurs first, but only to the extent of ten thousand nine hundred fifty dollars.
(e) Allowed unsecured claims, to the extent of two thousand four hundred twenty-five dollars for each individual, arising from the deposit with the person over whose property the receiver is appointed before the date of appointment of the receiver of money in connection with the purchase, lease, or rental of property or the purchase of services for personal, family, or household use by individuals that were not delivered or provided.
(f) Claims for a support debt as defined in RCW 74.20A.020(10), but not to the extent that the debt (i) is assigned to another entity, voluntarily, by operation of law, or otherwise; or (ii) includes a liability designated as a support obligation unless that liability is actually in the nature of a support obligation.
(g) Unsecured claims of governmental units for taxes which accrued prior to the date of appointment of the receiver.
(h) Other unsecured claims.
(2) If all of the classes under subsection (1) of this section have been paid in full, any residue shall be paid to the person over whose property the receiver is appointed.
Notes:
Purpose—Captions not law—2004 c 165: See notes following RCW 7.60.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · 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). “This proposed interpretation conflicts with RCW 7.60.230, which states that the trial court must allow a claim before the receiver’s duty to distribute to the creditor becomes mandatory.”
Constr. Loan Servs. Ii, Llc, V. Ecm Riverside Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Based on the schedule of priorities provided in RCW 7.60.230, LGI’s claim falls below that of secured creditors of the receivership estate, and the superior court erred when it ordered that LGI is entitled to return of its deposit prior to any other receivership estate…”
IBEW Pac. Coast Pension Fund v. Harris Elec., Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020). “18 19 3 In relevant part, RCW 7.60.230(1)(d) states: 20 Allowed claims in a general receivership shall receive distribution under this chapter in the order of priority under (a) through (h) of this subsection and .”
In The Receivership Of: Applied Restoration, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” RCW 7.60.230 provides the priorities for distribution of payment to creditors for the allowed claims in a general receivership.”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.60.230(1)(h). Allowing Johansen to sidestep the distribution scheme and receive full payment for the funds at issue here is contrary to public policy and the clear intent of our legislature as expressed in the plain language of the receivership statute: to fairly…”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.60.230(1)(h). Allowing Johansen to sidestep the distribution scheme and receive full payment for the funds at issue here is contrary to public policy and the clear intent of our legislature as expressed in the plain language of the receivership statute: to fairly…”
United States v. Docklight Brands Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024). “RCW 7.60.230. 5 The Receiver argues that “enter[ing] judgment and allow[ing] plaintiff to 6 execute on the judgment through garnishments and otherwise… will flip the orderly 7 liquidation of Docklight on its head and potentially abrogate the state law 8 receivership process.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230(1) — 2 cases
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “This proposed interpretation conflicts with RCW 7.60.230, which states that the trial court must allow a claim before the receiver’s duty to distribute to the creditor becomes mandatory.”
Constr. Loan Servs. Ii, Llc, V. Ecm Riverside Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Based on the schedule of priorities provided in RCW 7.60.230, LGI’s claim falls below that of secured creditors of the receivership estate, and the superior court erred when it ordered that LGI is entitled to return of its deposit prior to any other receivership estate…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230(1)(a) — 1 case
Constr. Loan Servs. Ii, Llc, V. Ecm Riverside Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Based on the schedule of priorities provided in RCW 7.60.230, LGI’s claim falls below that of secured creditors of the receivership estate, and the superior court erred when it ordered that LGI is entitled to return of its deposit prior to any other receivership estate…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230(1)(b) — 1 case
Constr. Loan Servs. Ii, Llc, V. Ecm Riverside Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Based on the schedule of priorities provided in RCW 7.60.230, LGI’s claim falls below that of secured creditors of the receivership estate, and the superior court erred when it ordered that LGI is entitled to return of its deposit prior to any other receivership estate…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230(1)(d) — 1 case
IBEW Pac. Coast Pension Fund v. Harris Elec., Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020). “18 19 3 In relevant part, RCW 7.60.230(1)(d) states: 20 Allowed claims in a general receivership shall receive distribution under this chapter in the order of priority under (a) through (h) of this subsection and .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230(1)(h) — 2 cases
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.60.230(1)(h). Allowing Johansen to sidestep the distribution scheme and receive full payment for the funds at issue here is contrary to public policy and the clear intent of our legislature as expressed in the plain language of the receivership statute: to fairly…”
In The Receivership Of: Castle Walls Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.60.230(1)(h). Allowing Johansen to sidestep the distribution scheme and receive full payment for the funds at issue here is contrary to public policy and the clear intent of our legislature as expressed in the plain language of the receivership statute: to fairly…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.230(d) — 1 case
IBEW Pac. Coast Pension Fund v. Harris Elec., Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020). “18 19 3 In relevant part, RCW 7.60.230(1)(d) states: 20 Allowed claims in a general receivership shall receive distribution under this chapter in the order of priority under (a) through (h) of this subsection and .”
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.