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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180 (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) A defendant sentenced to pay any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs who willfully defaults in the payment thereof or of any installment is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.21 RCW. The court may issue a warrant of arrest for his or her appearance.
(2) When any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or assessment of costs is imposed on a corporation or unincorporated association, it is the duty of the person authorized to make disbursement from the assets of the corporation or association to pay the obligation from those assets, and his or her failure to do so may be held to be contempt.
(3)(a) The court shall not sanction a defendant for contempt based on failure to pay fines, penalties, assessments, fees, or costs unless the court finds, after a hearing and on the record, that the failure to pay is willful. A failure to pay is willful if the defendant has the current ability to pay but refuses to do so.
(b) In determining whether the defendant has the current ability to pay, the court shall inquire into and consider: (i) The defendant's income and assets; (ii) the defendant's basic living costs as defined by RCW 10.101.010 and other liabilities including child support and other legal financial obligations; and (iii) the defendant's bona fide efforts to acquire additional resources. A defendant who is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3) is presumed to lack the current ability to pay.
(c) If the court determines that the defendant is homeless or a person who is mentally ill, as defined in RCW 71.24.025, failure to pay a legal financial obligation is not willful contempt and shall not subject the defendant to penalties.
(4) If a term of imprisonment for contempt for nonpayment of any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs is ordered, the term of imprisonment shall be set forth in the commitment order, and shall not exceed one day for each $25 of the amount ordered, 30 days if the amount ordered of costs was imposed upon conviction of a violation or misdemeanor, or one year in any other case, whichever is the shorter period. A person committed for nonpayment of any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs shall be given credit toward payment for each day of imprisonment at the rate specified in the commitment order.
(5) If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the default in the payment of any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs is not willful contempt, the court may, and if the defendant is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3), the court shall enter an order: (a) Allowing the defendant additional time for payment; (b) reducing the amount thereof or of each installment; (c) revoking the fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs or the unpaid portion thereof in whole or in part; or (d) converting the unpaid fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs to community restitution hours, if the jurisdiction operates a community restitution program, at the rate of no less than the state minimum wage established in RCW 49.46.020 for each hour of community restitution.
(6) A default in the payment of any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs or any installment thereof may be collected by any means authorized by law for the enforcement of a judgment. The levy of execution for the collection of any fine, penalty, assessment, fee, or costs shall not discharge a defendant committed to imprisonment for contempt until the amount has actually been collected.
[ 2023 c 449 s 12; 2022 c 260 s 15; 2018 c 269 s 8; 2010 c 8 s 1006; 1989 c 373 s 13; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 96 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 449: See note following RCW 13.40.058.
Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Construction—2018 c 269: See note following RCW 10.82.090.
Fine and costs—Collection procedure, commitment for failure to pay, execution against defendant's property: Chapter 10.82 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: State v. Stone, 268 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stone, 268 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 34× “GOVERNING STATUTES FOR FINANCIAL OBLIGATION ENFORCEMENT ¶ 19 The State argues on appeal that the LFO enforcement proceedings in Jefferson County were conducted under chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 14× “*105 RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment “is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 14× “RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment "is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
State v. Nason, 168 Wash. 2d 936 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 12× “To reach this conclusion, Nason relies on RCW 10.01.180. 5 He argues that RCW 9.94A.”
State v. Nason, 233 P.3d 848 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 12× “To reach this conclusion, Nason relies on RCW 10.01.180. [5] He argues that RCW 9.94A.”
State Of Washington v. Karen A. Conway, 438 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “634 (2002)5, and former RCW 10.01.180(4) (2010). We disagree 5 This statute was recodified as RCW 9.”
State v. Jorgenson, 737 P.2d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “RCW 10.01.180 provides in pertinent part: (1) When a defendant sentenced to pay a fine or costs defaults in the payment thereof or of any installment, the court on motion of the prosecuting attorney or upon its own motion may require him to show cause why his default should not…”
State v. Schwartz, 450 P.3d 141 (Wash. 2019). “But, assuming the majority is correct that felony convictions are intended to eventually wash out, holding that they do not wash out when a defendant willfully failed to pay them does not undermine that intent.”
State of Washington v. Jaclyn Rae Sleater, 378 P.3d 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “RCW 10.01.180(1); Smith, 147 Wn.2d at 105 (recognizing that RCW 10.”
State v. Nason, 192 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “Nason argues that RCW 10.01.180 and RCW 9.94A.634 should be construed together because both statutes discuss financial obligations.”
In Re Hammermaster, 985 P.2d 924 (Wash. 1999). “, RCW 10.01.180 allowing for the commitment of defaulting defendant on grounds of contempt of court; RCW 10.”
State v. Nason, 192 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “Nason argues that RCW 10.01.180 and RCW 9.94A.634 should be construed together because both statutes discuss financial obligations.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180(1) — 8 cases
State v. Stone, 268 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “GOVERNING STATUTES FOR FINANCIAL OBLIGATION ENFORCEMENT ¶ 19 The State argues on appeal that the LFO enforcement proceedings in Jefferson County were conducted under chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “*105 RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment “is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment "is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
State of Washington v. Jaclyn Rae Sleater, 378 P.3d 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 10.01.180(1); Smith, 147 Wn.2d at 105 (recognizing that RCW 10.”
State v. Nason, 168 Wash. 2d 936 (Wash. 2010). “To reach this conclusion, Nason relies on RCW 10.01.180. 5 He argues that RCW 9.94A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180(3) — 5 cases
State v. Stone, 268 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “GOVERNING STATUTES FOR FINANCIAL OBLIGATION ENFORCEMENT ¶ 19 The State argues on appeal that the LFO enforcement proceedings in Jefferson County were conducted under chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “*105 RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment “is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment "is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
State v. Nason, 192 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Nason argues that RCW 10.01.180 and RCW 9.94A.634 should be construed together because both statutes discuss financial obligations.”
State v. Nason, 192 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Nason argues that RCW 10.01.180 and RCW 9.94A.634 should be construed together because both statutes discuss financial obligations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Schwartz, 450 P.3d 141 (Wash. 2019). “But, assuming the majority is correct that felony convictions are intended to eventually wash out, holding that they do not wash out when a defendant willfully failed to pay them does not undermine that intent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180(4) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. Karen A. Conway, 438 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “634 (2002)5, and former RCW 10.01.180(4) (2010). We disagree 5 This statute was recodified as RCW 9.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “*105 RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment “is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment "is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180(5) — 3 cases
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “*105 RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment “is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 10.01.180 says that a defendant who defaults in the payment of a fine or an installment "is in contempt of court as provided in chapter 7.”
State Of Washington V. Jd Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.180(6) — 1 case
State v. Jorgenson, 737 P.2d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 10.01.180 provides in pertinent part: (1) When a defendant sentenced to pay a fine or costs defaults in the payment thereof or of any installment, the court on motion of the prosecuting attorney or upon its own motion may require him to show cause why his default should not…”
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.