Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.36.140 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The creditor shall give notice to the other party on a separate document or incorporated into one or more of the documents relating to a credit agreement. The notice shall be in type that is boldface, capitalized, underlined, or otherwise set out from surrounding written materials so it is conspicuous. The notice shall state substantially the following:
Oral agreements or oral commitments to loan money, extend credit, or to forbear from enforcing repayment of a debt are not enforceable under Washington law.
[ 1990 c 211 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2013 · leading case: Cowlitz Bank v. Leonard, 254 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cowlitz Bank v. Leonard, 254 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶6 All the loan agreements that Leonard signed contain the following notice, required under RCW 19.36.140: Oral agreements or oral commitments to loan money, extend credit, or to forbear from enforcing repayment of a debt are not enforceable under Washington law.”
W. Farm Serv., Inc. v. Olsen, 59 P.3d 93 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “RCW 19.36.140. The notice shall be in type that is bold face, capitalized, underlined, or otherwise set out from surrounding written materials so it is conspicuous.”
W. Farm Serv., Inc. v. Olsen, 59 P.3d 93 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “RCW 19.36.140. The notice shall be in type that is bold face, capitalized, underlined, or otherwise set out from surrounding written materials so it is conspicuous.”
Gbc Int'l Bank v. Cory & Geneanne Burke (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “) 6 RCW 19.36.140. 7 RCW 19.36.110 provides that "[a] credit agreement is not enforceable against the creditor unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the creditor.”
Robinett v. Opus Bank, 987 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “RCW19.36.140 (emphasis supplied). Defendants allege (and Plaintiffs do not contest) that every written agreement concerning the loans at issue in this lawsuit contained the required statutory language.”
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.