Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030 (2026)

Duties of broker

✓ 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 broker owes the following duties to their principal and to all parties in a transaction, which may not be waived:

(a) To exercise reasonable skill and care;

(b) To deal honestly and in good faith;

(c) To present all written offers, written notices and other written communications to and from either party in a timely manner, regardless of whether the property is subject to an existing contract for sale or the buyer is already a party to an existing contract to purchase;

(d) To disclose all existing material facts known by the broker and not apparent or readily ascertainable to a party; provided that this subsection shall not be construed to imply any duty to investigate matters that the broker has not agreed to investigate;

(e) To account in a timely manner for all money and property received from or on behalf of either party;

(f) To provide a pamphlet in the form prescribed by RCW 18.86.120 and obtain an acknowledgment of receipt by the party. The pamphlet shall be provided to:

(i) Any party to whom the broker renders real estate brokerage services as soon as reasonably practical but before the party signs a services agreement; and

(ii) Any party not represented by a broker in a transaction before the party signs an offer or as soon as reasonably practical; and

(g) To disclose in writing before the broker's principal signs an offer, or as soon as reasonably practical, but before the parties reach mutual agreement:

(i) Whether the broker represents the buyer as the buyer's agent, the seller as the seller's agent, or both parties as a limited dual agent. The disclosure shall be set forth in a separate paragraph titled "Agency Disclosure" in the agreement between the buyer and seller or in a separate writing titled "Agency Disclosure"; and

(ii) Any terms of compensation offered by a party or a real estate firm to a real estate firm representing another party.

(2) Unless otherwise agreed, a broker owes no duty to conduct an independent inspection of the property or to conduct an independent investigation of either party's financial condition, and owes no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of any statement made by either party or by any source reasonably believed by the broker to be reliable.

[ 2023 c 318 s 3; 2013 c 58 s 3; 1996 c 179 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 318: See note following RCW 18.86.010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Bloor v. Fritz, 180 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bloor v. Fritz, 180 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Failure To Disclose a Material Fact ¶ 29 Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing as RCW 18.86.030 requires. ¶ 30 Under RCW 18.”

Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wash. App. 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Failure To Disclose a Material Fact ¶29 Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing as RCW 18.86.030 requires. ¶30 Under RCW 18.”

Boguch v. Landover Corp., 224 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “NOTES [1] RCW 18.86.030 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Regardless of whether the licensee is an agent, a licensee owes to all parties to whom the licensee renders real estate brokerage services the following duties, which may not be waived: (a) To exercise reasonable skill and…”

Boguch v. Landover Corp., 153 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “RCW 18.86.030 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Regardless of whether the licensee is an agent, a licensee owes to all parties to whom the licensee renders real estate brokerage services the following duties, which may not be waived: (a) To exercise reasonable skill and care.”

Jackowski v. Borchelt, 278 P.3d 1100 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “050(1), states that “[ujnless additional duties are agreed to in writing signed by a buyer’s agent, the duties of a buyer’s agent are limited to those set forth in RCW 18.86.030 and [those listed in this statute].”

Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “3 In particular, the Jackowskis contend that their claims that Hawkins-Poe and Johnson breached statutory duties owed under RCW 18.86.030, as well as common law duties, should have survived summary judgment dismissal.”

Borish v. Russell, 155 Wash. App. 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “*898 Procedural ¶9 The Borishes filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court on January 23, 2006, alleging misrepresentation (fraud); negligence (negligent misrepresentation); violations of RCW 18.86.030; and Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch.”

Douglas v. Visser, 173 Wash. App. 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 18.86.030(1)(d). A claim for negligent misrepresentation exists when (1) the seller makes a false statement (2) to induce a business transaction and (3) the buyer justifiably relies on the false *834 statement.”

Jackowski v. Borchelt, 209 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “[3] In particular, the Jackowskis contend that their claims that Hawkins-Poe and Johnson breached statutory duties owed under RCW 18.86.030, as well as common law duties should have survived summary judgment dismissal.”

Borish v. Russell, 230 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Procedural ¶ 9 The Borishes filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court on January 23, 2006, alleging misrepresentation (fraud), negligence (negligent misrepresentation), RCW 18.86.030, and Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch.”

P.H.T.S., LLC v. Vantage Capital, LLC, 345 P.3d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Vantage asserts Sullivan violated the good faith duty of a real estate broker under RCW 18.86.030(l)(b). P.H.T.S. denies Sullivan violated his duty of good faith but asserts Vantage is not entitled to equitable relief.”

Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Hickethier next challenges the director's conclusion that she violated RCW 18.86.030. That statute requires that a real estate licensee exercise reasonable skill and care, deal honestly and in good faith, provide written communication to either party in a timely manner, disclose…”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(1) — 10 cases

Boguch v. Landover Corp., 224 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “NOTES [1] RCW 18.86.030 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Regardless of whether the licensee is an agent, a licensee owes to all parties to whom the licensee renders real estate brokerage services the following duties, which may not be waived: (a) To exercise reasonable skill and…”

Boguch v. Landover Corp., 153 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 18.86.030 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Regardless of whether the licensee is an agent, a licensee owes to all parties to whom the licensee renders real estate brokerage services the following duties, which may not be waived: (a) To exercise reasonable skill and care.”

Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Hickethier next challenges the director's conclusion that she violated RCW 18.86.030. That statute requires that a real estate licensee exercise reasonable skill and care, deal honestly and in good faith, provide written communication to either party in a timely manner, disclose…”

Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Noel Moon v. William Barr, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(1)(a) — 7 cases

Jackowski v. Borchelt, 209 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “[3] In particular, the Jackowskis contend that their claims that Hawkins-Poe and Johnson breached statutory duties owed under RCW 18.86.030, as well as common law duties should have survived summary judgment dismissal.”

Juanita Country Club Condo Owners Assoc., App v. Phillips Real Est. Servs., L.l.c., Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Richard Nau, V Nancy K. Vogel As Tr. For Mark O Vogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Hpep, Llc, V. Qian Meng (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(1)(b) — 7 cases

Preview Props., Inc. v. Landis, 165 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2007).

Hpep, Llc, V. Qian Meng (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Falcon Props., App-cross Resp v. Bowfits 1308 Llc, Resp-cross App (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Richard Nau, V Nancy K. Vogel As Tr. For Mark O Vogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Sergey Savchuk, App. v. Christine Sams, Resp's. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(1)(c) — 4 cases

Lincoln & Leslie Beauregard, Appellants/cross-respondents v. Anna Riley, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Hpep, Llc, V. Qian Meng (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Suzanne Parisien v. Eighty South Jackson Condo. Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(1)(d) — 5 cases

Bloor v. Fritz, 180 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Failure To Disclose a Material Fact ¶ 29 Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing as RCW 18.86.030 requires. ¶ 30 Under RCW 18.”

Avh & Bj Holdings 2, Llc, V Laclare Investments (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Richard Nau, V Nancy K. Vogel As Tr. For Mark O Vogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(1)(e) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(2) — 3 cases

Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wash. App. 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Failure To Disclose a Material Fact ¶29 Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing as RCW 18.86.030 requires. ¶30 Under RCW 18.”

Richard Nau, V Nancy K. Vogel As Tr. For Mark O Vogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(l)(a) — 2 cases

Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “3 In particular, the Jackowskis contend that their claims that Hawkins-Poe and Johnson breached statutory duties owed under RCW 18.86.030, as well as common law duties, should have survived summary judgment dismissal.”

Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(l)(b) — 2 cases

Michael Scott Maclay v. State Of Washington, Dep't of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(l)(c) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(l)(d) — 2 cases

Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030(l)(e) — 1 case

Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

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.