Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.144
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.144.090 (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) Any person who knowingly violates RCW 19.144.080 or who knowingly aids or abets in the violation of RCW 19.144.080 is guilty of a class B felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021(1)(b). Mortgage fraud is a serious level III offense per chapter 9.94A RCW.
(2) No information may be returned more than (a) five years after the violation, or (b) three years after the actual discovery of the violation, whichever date of limitation is later.
(3) For purposes of venue under this chapter, any violation of RCW 19.144.080 and 31.04.297(3) , is considered to have been committed: (a) In the county in which the residential property for which a residential mortgage loan is being sought is located; (b) in any county in which any act was performed in furtherance of the violation; or (c) in any county in which a document containing a misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission of a material fact is filed with the county recorder or the official registrar of deeds.
(4) Any person who violates this chapter is subject to civil forfeiture statutes.
(5) Any person who violates RCW 19.144.080 or 31.04.297(3) is liable for civil damages of five thousand dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater, including costs to repair the victim's credit record and quiet title on the residential property that is involved in the prosecution, and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court.
(6) In a proceeding under RCW 19.144.080 in which there has been a conviction, the sentencing court may issue such orders as necessary to correct a public record that contains false information resulting from a violation of the referenced sections.
[ 2015 c 229 s 4; 2008 c 108 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2022 · leading case: State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 15× “Here, the State timely filed within the statutory period because discovery of Merritt's crimes occurred in 2014, which is within RCW 19.144.090's three year limit. VRP (Sept.”
State Of Washington v. Diana Joline Merritt (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “080(1)(a) and (b), (2), and (3) and RCW 19.144.090. Substantial evidence supports both of the trial court’s findings Anyone reading the appraisals would reasonably conclude that a licensed appraiser named Tom Reed completed them.”
State Of Washington v. Douglas Ross White (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 19.144.090(2)states that Inio information may be returned more than (a)five years after the violation, or (b) three years after the actual discovery of the violation, whichever date of limitation is later.”
Jessica Saepoff v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (9th Cir. 2022). “Second, because Saepoff based her quiet title claim, see Wash. Rev. Code § 19.144.090 (5), only on the mortgage fraud theory, it too fails.”
Saepoff v. North Cascade Tr. Servs., Inc (W.D. Wash. 2019). “” RCW 19.144.090. As previously discussed, plaintiff 12 does not have a private right of action to enforce RCW 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.144.090(2) — 3 cases
State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019). “Here, the State timely filed within the statutory period because discovery of Merritt's crimes occurred in 2014, which is within RCW 19.144.090's three year limit. VRP (Sept.”
State Of Washington v. Diana Joline Merritt (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “080(1)(a) and (b), (2), and (3) and RCW 19.144.090. Substantial evidence supports both of the trial court’s findings Anyone reading the appraisals would reasonably conclude that a licensed appraiser named Tom Reed completed them.”
State Of Washington v. Douglas Ross White (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 19.144.090(2)states that Inio information may be returned more than (a)five years after the violation, or (b) three years after the actual discovery of the violation, whichever date of limitation is later.”
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.