Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.290 (2026)

Termination of receivership

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Upon distribution or disposition of all property of the estate, or the completion of the receiver's duties with respect to estate property, the receiver shall move the court to be discharged upon notice and a hearing.
(2) The receiver's final report and accounting setting forth all receipts and disbursements of the estate shall be annexed to the petition for discharge and filed with the court.
(3) Upon approval of the final report, the court shall discharge the receiver.
(4) The receiver's discharge releases the receiver from any further duties and responsibilities as receiver under this chapter.
(5) Upon motion of any party in interest, or upon the court's own motion, the court has the power to discharge the receiver and terminate the court's administration of the property over which the receiver was appointed. If the court determines that the appointment of the receiver was wrongfully procured or procured in bad faith, the court may assess against the person who procured the receiver's appointment (a) all of the receiver's fees and other costs of the receivership and (b) any other sanctions the court determines to be appropriate.
[ 2004 c 165 s 31.]

Notes:

Purpose—Captions not law—2004 c 165: See notes following RCW 7.60.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “RCW 7.60.290(5) gives the trial court the “power to” terminate the receivership: “Upon motion of any party in interest, or upon the court’s own motion, the court has the power to discharge the receiver and terminate the court’s administration of the property over which the…”
Mony Life Ins. v. Cissne Fam., L.L.C., 148 P.3d 1065 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “” RCW 7.60.290(5). RCW 7.60.290(5) provides a possible remedy.”
Charles Feick, App V. The Brutsche Fam. Revoc. Trust, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.60.290(5). We review a decision of whether to terminate a receivership for an abuse of discretion.”
Apollonia & William Kwan, Resps V. Alan B.& Lynne Clark, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “To address this issue, we considered the authority of the court as outlined in RCW 7.60.290(5). Kwan, No. 83693-5-I, slip op.”
Tig Ins. Co., V. Ro-con Equip. Specialist, Inc., Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “2 Ro-Con briefly argues that if the judgment is vacated then the receivership should be terminated under RCW 7.60.290(5) as wrongfully procured or procured in bad faith and this court should vacate the No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.60.290(5) — 5 cases
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc., 195 Wash. App. 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 7.60.290(5) gives the trial court the “power to” terminate the receivership: “Upon motion of any party in interest, or upon the court’s own motion, the court has the power to discharge the receiver and terminate the court’s administration of the property over which the…”
Mony Life Ins. v. Cissne Fam., L.L.C., 148 P.3d 1065 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 7.60.290(5). RCW 7.60.290(5) provides a possible remedy.”
Charles Feick, App V. The Brutsche Fam. Revoc. Trust, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “RCW 7.60.290(5). We review a decision of whether to terminate a receivership for an abuse of discretion.”
Apollonia & William Kwan, Resps V. Alan B.& Lynne Clark, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “To address this issue, we considered the authority of the court as outlined in RCW 7.60.290(5). Kwan, No. 83693-5-I, slip op.”
Tig Ins. Co., V. Ro-con Equip. Specialist, Inc., Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “2 Ro-Con briefly argues that if the judgment is vacated then the receivership should be terminated under RCW 7.60.290(5) as wrongfully procured or procured in bad faith and this court should vacate the No.”
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.