Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.19
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.19.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In criminal cases where a recognizance for the appearance of any person, either as a witness or to appear and answer, shall have been taken and a default entered, the recognizance shall be declared forfeited by the court, and at the time of adjudging such forfeiture said court shall enter judgment against the principal and sureties named in such recognizance for the sum therein mentioned, and execution may issue thereon the same as upon other judgments. If the surety is not notified by the court in writing of the unexplained failure of the defendant to appear within thirty days of the date for appearance, then the forfeiture shall be null and void and the recognizance exonerated.
[ 1986 c 322 s 2; Code 1881 s 1137; 1873 p 230 s 217; 1867 p 103 s 1; RRS s 2231.]

Notes:

Severability—1986 c 322: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1986 c 322 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: Matter of Marriage of Bralley, 855 P.2d 1174 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Marriage of Bralley, 855 P.2d 1174 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 10× “In the order, the court commissioner noted that the forfeiture for failure to provide notice provision of RCW 10.19.090 2 did not apply to the cash bail, that Gibson was not the party of record for the bail, that she was not responsible for Bralley's apprehension under RCW 10.”
State v. Parada, 877 P.2d 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “National appeals the March 16, 1993, Order Confirming Bail Forfeiture and the November 15, 1993, Judgment of Forfeiture of Appearance Bond, arguing that the notice requirement of RCW 10.19.090 and the terms of the surety contract required the trial court to exonerate the bond.”
State v. Kramer, 167 Wash. 2d 548 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 8× “Upon motion by the State, the trial court immediately entered a default judgment and order of forfeiture pursuant to RCW 10.19.090. ¶25 That same day, Kramer informed All City’s agent, Charles Stewart, by telephone that he had missed his hearing, claiming he could not locate his…”
Johnson v. Kittitas Cnty., 11 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “The “notice of forfeiture” refers to the notice required under RCW 10.19.090 that is given to a surety by the court as part of the forfeiture proceedings occurring when a principal fails to appear.”
State v. Kramer, 219 P.3d 700 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 8× “Upon motion by the State, the trial court immediately entered a default judgment and order of forfeiture pursuant to RCW 10.19.090. ¶ 25 That same day, Kramer informed All City's agent, Charles Stewart, by telephone *706 that he had missed his hearing, claiming he could not…”
State v. French, 945 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 10.19.090. When the focus of the proceedings turns from the defendant’s guilt to the defendant’s failure to appear in court, the surety’s role is no longer collateral.”
State v. Kramer, 174 P.3d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “If a defendant fails to appear at a promised hearing and a default is entered, the recognizance (bail bond) shall be declared forfeited by the court pursuant to RCW 10.19.090, subject to possible exoneration pursuant to RCW 10.”
State v. Kramer, 141 Wash. App. 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “If a defendant fails to appear at a promised hearing and a default is entered, the recognizance (bail bond) shall be declared forfeited by the court pursuant to RCW 10.19.090, subject to possible exoneration pursuant to RCW 10.”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Kittitas, 11 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “The "notice of forfeiture" refers to the notice required under RCW 10.19.090 that is given to a surety by the court as part of the forfeiture proceedings occurring when a principal fails to appear.”
State Of Washington v. Sarah Marie Strong (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 10.19.090. There are two statutory safety valves protecting a surety from losing the bond amount.”
State of Washington v. Edward Lee Jeglum, 442 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “In Bralley, we held that RCW 10.19.090, which governs forfeiture of bail bonds, does not apply to cash bail posted by the subject of the bail.”
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.