Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 8.12.150 (2026)
Separate findings where there are several interests—Interpleader of adverse claimants
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If the land and buildings belong to different parties, or if the title to the property be divided into different interests by lease or otherwise, the damages done to each of such interests may be separately found by the jury on the request of any party. In making such findings, the jury shall first find and set forth in their verdict the total amount of the damage to said land and buildings and all premises therein, estimating the same as an entire estate and as if the same were the sole property of one owner in fee simple; and they shall then apportion the damages so found among the several parties entitled to the same, in proportion to their several interests and claims and the damages sustained by them respectively, and set forth such apportionment in their verdict. No delay in ascertaining the amount of compensation shall be occasioned by any doubt or contest which may arise as to the ownership of the property, or any part thereof, or as to the extent of the interest of any defendant in the property to be taken or damaged, but in such case, the jury shall ascertain the entire compensation or damage that should be paid for the property and the entire interests of all the parties therein, and the court may thereafter require adverse claimants to interplead, so as to fully determine their rights and interests in the compensation so ascertained. And the court may make such order as may be necessary in regard to the deposit or payment of such compensation.
[ 1907 c 153 s 11; RRS s 9225.]
Notes:
Rules of court: CR 54.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: Corbin v. Madison, 529 P.2d 1145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974).
Corbin v. Madison, 529 P.2d 1145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). “484 (1929); RCW 8.12.150. The court’s final order of disbursement, which awarded no portion of the award to either Knute America Corporation or to the Madisons, was entered on May 11, 1970.”
State v. Higgins, 449 P.2d 393 (Wash. 1969). “, pertaining to school districts, may be ambiguous as to whether the interests of all parties shall be decided in one proceeding; but RCW 8.12.150, pertaining to cities, and RCW 8.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. V. Marymoor Storage Partners Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” CCTMO, Sprint, and T-Mobile West objected, arguing that the court should distribute the remaining funds only after an evidentiary hearing under RCW 8.12.150 and that Landmark had not identified the specific interest for which it requested disbursement.”
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.