Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.01
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.170 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When a defendant is sentenced to pay fines, penalties, assessments, fees, restitution, or costs, the court may grant permission for payment to be made within a specified period of time or in specified installments. If the court finds that the defendant is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3), the court shall grant permission for payment to be made within a specified period of time or in specified installments. If no such permission is included in the sentence the fine or costs shall be payable forthwith.
(2) An offender's monthly payment shall be applied in the following order of priority until satisfied:
(a) First, proportionally to restitution to victims that have not been fully compensated from other sources;
(b) Second, proportionally to restitution to insurance or other sources with respect to a loss that has provided compensation to victims;
(c) Third, proportionally to crime victims' assessments; and
(d) Fourth, proportionally to costs, fines, and other assessments required by law.
[ 2022 c 260 s 19; 2018 c 269 s 7; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 96 s 2.]

Notes:

Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Construction—2018 c 269: See note following RCW 10.82.090.
Payment of fine and costs in installments: RCW 9.92.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: State Of Washington v. Jason Shirts, 195 Wash. App. 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington v. Jason Shirts, 195 Wash. App. 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant’s immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, or modify the method of payment under RCW 10.01.170. Per…”
State v. Smits, 216 P.3d 1097 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant's immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in *1101 costs, or modify the method of payment under RCW…”
City of Richland v. Wakefield, 380 P.3d 459 (Wash. 2016). ““If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant’s immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, or modify the method of payment under RCW 10.01.170.”…”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). “A defendant who is not in contumacious default may petition the court at any time for remission of the costs or any unpaid portion.”
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). “A defendant who is not in contumacious default may petition the court at any time for remission of the costs or any unpaid portion.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “Furthermore, the court has independent authority to allow installment payment under RCW 10.01.170. If installment payment of fines were permissible only as a term of probation under former RCW 3.”
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). “A defendant who is not in contumacious default may petition the court at any time for remission of the costs or any unpaid portion. RCW 10.73.160(4). If payment will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant’s immediate family, the court may remit all or part of…”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “Furthermore, the court has independent authority to allow installment payment under RCW 10.01.170. If installment payment of fines were only permissible as a term of probation under former RCW 3.”
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). “A defendant who is not in contumacious default may petition the court at any time for remission of the costs or any unpaid portion.”
State v. Curry, 814 P.2d 1252 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or his immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, or modify the method of payment under RCW 10.01.170.” 2 We do not…”
State Of Washington v. Karen A. Conway, 438 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “That statute authorizes a superior court to remit certain LFOs, “[i]f it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant’s immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due…”
State v. Phillips, 828 P.2d 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or his immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, or modify the method of payment under RCW 10.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.