Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.902 (2026)

Supplementary provisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless displaced by the provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause, supplement its provisions.
[ 1987 c 444 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—1987 c 444: See note following RCW 19.40.011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1991–2015 · leading case: Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.40.902. But when the UFTA is silent on a particular issue, common law tenets "supplement its provisions.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “RCW 19.40.902. But when the UFTA is silent on a particular issue, common law tenets “supplement its provisions.”
Freitag v. McGhie, 947 P.2d 1186 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 19.40.902 states: "Unless displaced by the provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity, including .”
Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wash. 2d 816 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 19.40.902 states: "Unless displaced by the provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity, including .”
Park Hill Corp. v. Sharp, 803 P.2d 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “081(b); RCW 19.40.902. Therefore, under the UFTA and the UFCA, a defrauded creditor is entitled to a money judgment against a transferee if the Deyong requirements are met, or equitable principles otherwise compel such relief.”
McMaster v. Farmer, 886 P.2d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “…displaced by the provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity . . . supplement its provisions.” RCW 19.40.902.”
Lacey Marketplace Assocs. II, LLC v. United Farmers of Alberta Coop. Ltd., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “” RCW 19.40.902. Relying on that statutory language, Sportsman arrives at the conclusion that a court “has discretion to enter judgment on a fraudulent transfer claim against the transferee of the debtor’s asset, or against the beneficiary of the transfer, but not [against] both.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 186 P.3d 348 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 19.40.902. Mrs. Wilson argues that common law fraudulent transfer as exemplified by Davison has been displaced by the UFTA.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 145 Wash. App. 86 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 19.40.902. Mrs. *104 Wilson argues that common law fraudulent transfer as exemplified by Davison has been displaced by the UFTA.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 183 P.3d 292 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 19.40.902. Mrs. Wilson *301 argues that common law fraudulent transfer as exemplified by Davison has been displaced by the UFTA.”
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.