Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.82
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section and RCW 3.50.100, 3.62.020, and 35.20.220, restitution imposed in a judgment shall bear interest from the date of the judgment until payment, at the rate applicable to civil judgments. As of June 7, 2018, no interest shall accrue on nonrestitution legal financial obligations. All nonrestitution interest retained by the court shall be split 25 percent to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund, 25 percent to the state treasurer for deposit in the judicial information system account as provided in RCW 2.68.020, 25 percent to the county current expense fund, and 25 percent to the county current expense fund to fund local courts.
(2) The court may elect not to impose interest on any restitution the court orders. Before determining not to impose interest on restitution, the court shall inquire into and consider the following factors: (a) Whether the offender is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3) or general rule 34; (b) the offender's available funds, as defined in RCW 10.101.010(2), and other liabilities including child support and other legal financial obligations; (c) whether the offender is homeless; and (d) whether the offender is mentally ill, as defined in RCW 71.24.025. The court shall also consider the victim's input, if any, as it relates to any financial hardship caused to the victim if interest is not imposed. The court may also consider any other information that the court believes, in the interest of justice, relates to not imposing interest on restitution. After consideration of these factors, the court may waive the imposition of restitution interest.
(3) The court may, on motion by the offender, reduce or waive the interest on legal financial obligations levied as a result of a criminal conviction as follows:
(a) The court shall waive all interest on the portions of the legal financial obligations that are not restitution that accrued prior to June 7, 2018;
(b) The court may waive or reduce interest on the restitution portion of the legal financial obligations only if the principal has been paid in full, except as provided in (c) of this subsection. The court may grant the motion, establish a payment schedule, and retain jurisdiction over the offender for purposes of reviewing and revising the reduction or waiver of interest;
(c) The court may, following the offender's release from total confinement, waive or reduce interest on restitution that accrued during the offender's period of incarceration if the court finds that the offender does not have the current or likely future ability to pay. A person does not have the current ability to pay if the person is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3). The prosecuting attorney shall make reasonable efforts to notify the victim entitled to restitution of the date and place of the hearing. The court shall also consider the victim's input, if any, as it relates to any financial hardship caused to the victim if interest is reduced or waived.
(4) This section only applies to adult offenders.
[ 2023 c 449 s 13; 2022 c 260 s 12; 2018 c 269 s 1; 2015 c 265 s 23; 2011 c 106 s 2; 2009 c 479 s 14; 2004 c 121 s 1; 1995 c 291 s 7; 1989 c 276 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: "Nothing in this act requires the courts to refund or reimburse amounts previously paid towards legal financial obligations or interest on legal financial obligations." [ 2018 c 269 s 20.]
Finding—Intent—2015 c 265: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Finding—2011 c 106: "(1) The legislature finds that it is in the interest of the public to promote the reintegration into society of individuals convicted of crimes. Research indicates that legal financial obligations may constitute a significant barrier to successful reintegration. The legislature further recognizes that the accrual of interest on nonrestitution debt during the term of incarceration results in many individuals leaving prison with insurmountable debt. These circumstances make it less likely that restitution will be paid in full and more likely that former offenders and their families will remain in poverty. In order to foster reintegration, this act creates a mechanism for courts to eliminate interest accrued on nonrestitution debt during incarceration and improves incentives for payment of legal financial obligations.
(2) At the same time, the legislature believes that payment of legal financial obligations is an important part of taking personal responsibility for one's actions. The legislature therefore, supports the efforts of county clerks in taking collection action against those who do not make a good faith effort to pay." [ 2011 c 106 s 1.]
Effective date—2009 c 479: See note following RCW 2.56.030.
Severability—1989 c 276: See note following RCW 9.95.062.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 245 cases (106 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State Of Washington, V. James Laron Ellis, 530 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington, V. James Laron Ellis, 530 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “In 2022, the legislature added a subsection to RCW 10.82.090 effective January 1, 2023. LAWS OF 2022, ch.”
State Of Washington, V. Roosevelt Reed, 538 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “A recent amendment to RCW 10.82.090 provides that the superior court “may elect not to impose interest on any restitution the court orders” and that this determination shall be based on factors such as whether the defendant is indigent.”
State Of Washington, V. Nicholas Windsor Anderson, 552 P.3d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “It waived all nonmandatory legal financial obligations (LFOs) and imposed a $100 DNA fee.”
State Of Washington v. Jason Spaulding, 476 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Interest Accrual Provision Spaulding claims, and the State concedes, that the sentencing court erred in imposing interest on his nonrestitution LFOs because the legislature amended RCW 10.82.090 in 2018 to eliminate interest accrual on nonrestitution portions of LFOs.”
State Of Washington, V. Heather Azevedo, 547 P.3d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “See former RCW 10.82.090 (2018); LAWS OF 2022, ch. 260, § 12.”
State v. Blazina, 344 P.3d 680 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 10.82.090(1); Travis Stearns, Legal Financial Obligations: Fulfilling the Promise of Gideon by Reducing the Burden, 11 Seattle J.”
State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. V. Mical Darion Roberts, App/cross-res., 553 P.3d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Second, the statute that imposed interest on restitution was also amended, effective January 1, 2023, and RCW 10.82.090(2) now provides that the trial court “may elect not to impose interest on any restitution the court orders.”
Francisco Moreno, Appellant/cr-respondent v. State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant, 470 P.3d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Citing RCW 10.82.090, his judgment and sentence provides that “[t]he financial obligations imposed .”
State v. Duncan, 374 P.3d 83 (Wash. 2016). “7541 (DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) collection fee); RCW 10.82.090(2)(d) (effectively making the principal on restitution mandatory).”
State v. Claypool, 45 P.3d 609 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “But the court deferred the accrual of interest until his release from custody. We reverse because the statute's mandate is clear.”
Deep Water Brewing v. Fairway Resources Ltd., 215 P.3d 990 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The method for determining an interest rate prescribed by this subsection is also the method for determining the *1020 "rate applicable to civil judgments" for purposes of RCW 10.82.090. ¶ 155 The question here is whether the judgment was "founded on" tort or "founded on"…”
Deep Water Brewing, LLC v. Fairway Resources Ltd., 152 Wash. App. 229 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The method for determining an interest rate prescribed by this subsection is also the method *286 for determining the “rate applicable to civil judgments” for purposes of RCW 10.82.090. ¶155 The question here is whether the judgment was “founded on” tort or “founded on” contract.”
Show all 245 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(1) — 112 cases
State v. Blazina, 344 P.3d 680 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 10.82.090(1); Travis Stearns, Legal Financial Obligations: Fulfilling the Promise of Gideon by Reducing the Burden, 11 Seattle J.”
State Of Washington v. Jason Spaulding, 476 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Interest Accrual Provision Spaulding claims, and the State concedes, that the sentencing court erred in imposing interest on his nonrestitution LFOs because the legislature amended RCW 10.82.090 in 2018 to eliminate interest accrual on nonrestitution portions of LFOs.”
State Of Washington, V. Heather Azevedo, 547 P.3d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “See former RCW 10.82.090 (2018); LAWS OF 2022, ch. 260, § 12.”
State Of Washington, V. Roosevelt Reed, 538 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “A recent amendment to RCW 10.82.090 provides that the superior court “may elect not to impose interest on any restitution the court orders” and that this determination shall be based on factors such as whether the defendant is indigent.”
State Of Washington v. Jesse Johns, 477 P.3d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(1)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V Dennis Carlos Oya (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(2) — 65 cases
State Of Washington, V. James Laron Ellis, 530 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “In 2022, the legislature added a subsection to RCW 10.82.090 effective January 1, 2023. LAWS OF 2022, ch.”
State Of Washington, V. Roosevelt Reed, 538 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “A recent amendment to RCW 10.82.090 provides that the superior court “may elect not to impose interest on any restitution the court orders” and that this determination shall be based on factors such as whether the defendant is indigent.”
State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. V. Mical Darion Roberts, App/cross-res., 553 P.3d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Second, the statute that imposed interest on restitution was also amended, effective January 1, 2023, and RCW 10.82.090(2) now provides that the trial court “may elect not to impose interest on any restitution the court orders.”
State Of Washington, V. Nicholas Windsor Anderson, 552 P.3d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “It waived all nonmandatory legal financial obligations (LFOs) and imposed a $100 DNA fee.”
State Of Washington, V. Heather Azevedo, 547 P.3d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “See former RCW 10.82.090 (2018); LAWS OF 2022, ch. 260, § 12.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(2)(a) — 11 cases
State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Katrina Lacy, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. Jason Ferguson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State of Washington v. Edward Leon Nelson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington V. Jd Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State of Washington v. Taylor Ross Landrum (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(2)(b) — 4 cases
State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Katrina Lacy, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. Tomas Keen (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, V. Kenneth Andrew Curtiss (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
State Of Washington, V. Ryan Jackson (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(2)(c) — 2 cases
State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Katrina Lacy, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Washington v. Edward Leon Nelson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(2)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Duncan, 374 P.3d 83 (Wash. 2016). “7541 (DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) collection fee); RCW 10.82.090(2)(d) (effectively making the principal on restitution mandatory).”
State v. Duncan (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(2)(h) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Raymond Edward Chaney (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(3) — 7 cases
State Of Washington, V. Darryl William Kennon (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
State Of Washington, V. Franklin Hutton (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State of Washington v. Matthew M. Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
State Of Washington, V. Debra Jean Keskey (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Lonnie Burton Nka Thomas Allen Zyxx (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(3)(a) — 3 cases
State of Washington v. Robert Silvio Agli (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington, V. Raymond Jay Femling (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington, V. Ryan Jackson (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(3)(b) — 6 cases
State Of Washington, V. Lonnie Burton Nka Thomas Allen Zyxx (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Franklin Hutton (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington V. Jd Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Ryan Jackson (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Aaron Drew Ingalsbe (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.090(3)(c) — 5 cases
State of Washington v. Luis Andre Perez (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Aaron Drew Ingalsbe (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State of Washington v. Matthew M. Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
State Of Washington, V. Franklin Hutton (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington, V. Ryan Jackson (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.