Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.25
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
There shall be paid by the condemnor in respect of each parcel of real property acquired by eminent domain or by consent under threat thereof, in addition to the fair market value of the property, a sum equal to the various expenditures actually and reasonably incurred by those with an interest or interests in said parcel in the process of evaluating the condemnor's offer to buy the same, but not to exceed a total of seven hundred fifty dollars. In the case of multiple interests in a parcel, the division of such sum shall be determined by the court or by agreement of the parties.
[ 1999 c 52 s 1; 1967 ex.s. c 137 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 125 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1968–2016 · leading case: Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wash. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wash. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The court ordered the $10,000 be paid over 8 to the Thoenys and it awarded them $750 in statutory costs under RCW 8.25.020. 9 Apparently the trial court denied the Thoenys’ request for interest and attorney fees because such fees were not awarded in the written judgment and…”
State v. Roth, 479 P.2d 55 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 2× “RCW 8.25.020. Third, the condemnor is required to pay a limited amount for the actual reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by the condemnee in removing his personalty from the appropriated property.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co., 376 P.3d 372 (Wash. 2016). “010 (requiring condemnor to serve on condemnee a written offer showing the amount of total compensation it will settle for 30 days before trial), RCW 8.25.020 (requiring condemnor to cover, in addition to the fair market value of the property, actual and reasonable expenditures…”
State v. Scheel, 443 P.2d 658 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 5× “The judgment as to item 2 included only $100 to all six persons to pay part of the owners’ costs of evaluating the property as purportedly provided in RCW 8.25.020. 2 No appeal has been taken from either judgment of appropriation entered on the jury’s verdicts.”
Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 101 P.3d 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The court ordered the $10,000 be paid over [8] to the Thoenys and it awarded them $750 in statutory costs under RCW 8.25.020. [9] Apparently *434 the trial court denied the Thoenys' request for interest and attorney fees because such fees were not awarded in the written judgment…”
Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State, 215 P.3d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “To support its position, Union Elevator points to a companion regulation of the Relocation Act, which provides, “The owner of the real property shall be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney, and expert witness fees, which the owner actually…”
State ex rel. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Allerdice, 101 Wash. App. 25 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Statutory evaluation costs are payable under RCW 8.25.020, not RCW 8.25.010. The maximum award is $750.”
State Ex Rel. Convention Ctr. v. Allerdice, 1 P.3d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “080(1) provides for attorney fees of $125 in all actions where judgment is rendered.”
Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. WSDOT, 215 P.3d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “To support its position, Union Elevator points to a companion regulation of the Relocation Act, which provides: "The owner of the real property shall be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney, and expert witness fees, which the owner actually…”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co. (Wash. 2016). “020 (requiring condemnor to cover, in addition to the fair market value of the property, actual and reasonable expenditures incurred by the condemnee in the process of evaluating the condemnor's offer), former RCW 8.25.030 (repealed by LAWS OF 1971, Ex.”
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.