Ejectment Actions

Ejectment in Washington: The Proper Remedy for Removing Nontenants (and Sometimes Tenants)

Washington law provides two different legal paths for recovering possession of real property:

Unlawful detainer — the (at least theoretically) faster, statutory eviction process, and
Ejectment — a traditional civil lawsuit used to determine who has the superior right to possession.

Unlawful detainer is more powerful in some ways and is intended as an expedited means for an owner to regain possession of real property. These attractive attributes are less potent than they used to be, and unlawful detainer applies only to a true landlord‑tenant relationship (and a few other narrow scenarios, such as trustee's sale foreclosures). When the person in possession is not a tenant, the unlawful detainer statutes simply do not apply—and the only available remedy is ejectment. Under a recent Court of Appeals opinion, as to a residential tenant, ejectment is not available.

When Unlawful Detainer Does Not Apply

Unlawful detainer is a purely statutory remedy. Courts can only use it in the situations the statute expressly covers. When the occupant is not a tenant under the Residential Landlord‑Tenant Act (RLTA) or the commercial unlawful detainer statute, the court has no authority to grant relief under those statutes.

In these situations, ejectment is the proper remedy. Washington courts have consistently held that unlawful detainer does not apply to:

Tenants at will
Occupants with no rent obligation
Former employees living on the property
Buyers in possession after a failed sale
Friends, relatives, or guests who have overstayed
Any other person whose occupancy is terminable on demand

For these categories of occupants, ejectment is not just an option—it is the correct and often exclusive method of recovering possession.

Notice Requirements in Ejectment

For non-tenants, courts have long held that no statutory eviction notice is required before filing an ejectment action. The action itself provides the necessary notice.

For tenants, the analysis is different. After the 2026 Riviera Northgate decision, residential tenants covered by the RLTA cannot be removed through ejectment at all. Commercial tenants, however, may still be subject to ejectment in appropriate circumstances, and the notice requirements depend on the lease and the facts of the case.

Bottom Line

Non-tenants: Unlawful detainer does not apply. Ejectment is the proper remedy.
Residential tenants: After Riviera Northgate, ejectment is not available; the RLTA controls.
Commercial tenants: Ejectment may still be available depending on the lease and the nature of the occupancy.

Ejectment Is Not Available Against Residential Tenants Under the RLTA

Washington courts have long recognized that ejectment and unlawful detainer are distinct remedies. Cases such as Verline v. Hyssop and Petch v. Willman held that unlawful detainer is not the exclusive method of recovering possession in general.

However, a 2026 Court of Appeals decision—Riviera Northgate Apartments, LLC v. Caine—clarified the rule for residential tenancies**. The court held that when the Residential Landlord‑Tenant Act (RLTA) applies, ejectment is not a lawful method of eviction. The RLTA is a specific statute governing residential landlord‑tenant relationships, and it controls over the more general ejectment statute. As the court explained, because the RLTA applied, “the ejection action was improper.”

Bottom line:

Ejectment remains a valid remedy in Washington, but
Not against residential tenants protected by the RLTA, and
Landlords must use RLTA unlawful detainer procedures—including the required notices, summons, and tenant protections.

Ejectment may still be appropriate in non‑residential or non‑RLTA situations (e.g., commercial leases, post‑foreclosure holdovers, certain licensees, or occupants who are not “tenants” under RCW 59.18.030).