§9.3 - Comparison with other Remedies

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§9.3 COMPARISON WITH OTHER REMEDIES

This section discusses comparisons between actions to quiet title or for ejectment and actions seeking partition, unlawful detainer, and declaratory judgment.

(1) Partition

Although actions to quiet title or for ejectment provide a method for resolving disputes among persons asserting conflicting claims to the same interest in real property, an action for partition (which finds its statutory basis in Chapter 7.52 RCW) establishes a method for dividing the interests of coowners. The division may be an actual division of ownership so that each party obtains a specific parcel of property; or in the proper instance, the property may be sold and the receipts divided. RCW 7.52.090. See Volume 4, Chapter 10 (Partition), of this deskbook. An action for partition may be combined with an action to quiet title, as in Washington Pulp & Paper Corp. v. Robinson, 166 Wash. 210, 6 P.2d 632 (1932) (overruling prior case to the contrary).

(2) Unlawful detainer

The forcible entry, forcible detainer, and unlawful detainer statute, Chapter 59.12 RCW, is a special statute that grants persons entitled to possession of real property the right, in specific circumstances, to regain possession of the real property in a summary proceeding that is entitled to priority over all other civil actions. See RCW 59.12.130. The jurisdiction of the court in an unlawful detainer proceeding is generally limited to the amount of unpaid rent and the right to possession. See, e.g., Pine Corp. v. Richardson, 12 Wn.App. 459, 530 P.2d 696, review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1010 (1975). The unlawful detainer statute is a special statute intended to limit the common-law right of personal reentry, thereby preserving the peace. Kessler v. Nielsen, 3 Wn.App. 120, 472 P.2d 616 (1970). Actions for unlawful detainer are purely statutory and separate from ejectment actions.

A landlord may bring an action under the unlawful detainer statute or may, at the landlord's election, bring an action for ejectment. Petsch v. Willman, 29 Wn.2d 136, 185 P.2d 992 (1947). In bringing an action for ejectment the plaintiff is not required to give the statutory notice called for by the unlawful detainer statute. Woodward v. Blanchett, 36 Wn.2d 27, 216 P.2d 228 (1950); Petsch, 29 Wn.2d 136. However, a plaintiff in an ejectment action is not entitled to an expedited trial as under the unlawful detainer statute. In addition, unlike the unlawful detainer statute, the ejectment...