Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.903 (2026)
Uniformity of application and construction
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it.
[ 1987 c 444 s 11.]
Notes:
Effective date—1987 c 444: See note following RCW 19.40.011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Freitag v. McGhie, 947 P.2d 1186 (Wash. 1997).
Freitag v. McGhie, 947 P.2d 1186 (Wash. 1997). “In other words, the statute is intended not only "to establish greater uniformity in these limitations but also to reduce the time that is generally available under state statutes of limitations to four years for most transfers and obligations and one year for preferential…”
Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wash. 2d 816 (Wash. 1997). “In other words, the statute is intended not only "to establish greater uniformity in these limitations but also to reduce the time that is generally available under state statutes of limitations to four years for most transfers and obligations and one year for preferential…”
Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537 (Wash. 2009). “” RCW 19.40.903. Thus, it is appropriate to look not only to decisions by courts of this state, but also to those of other states operating under the UFTA.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 174 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Foreclosure, or sale of an asset for no net profit, means the asset was fully encumbered and therefore not an "asset" for purpose of the UFTA.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 142 Wash. App. 53 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Foreclosure, or sale of an asset for no net profit, means the asset was fully encumbered and therefore not an “asset” for purpose of the UFTA.”
DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaft Bank v. Meyer, 869 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2017). “Lee, for example, the defendants argued that “transfers of funds from the receivership entities could not have been transfers of ‘assets’ because assets under FUFTA[, Florida’s statute identical to WUFTA,] must be [the] ‘property of a debtor,’ and the funds .”
Sedwick v. Gwinn, 873 P.2d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “8 Because RCW 19.40.903 provides that the UFTA should be construed in a uniform manner throughout the states, case law from other jurisdictions can provide guidance in interpreting the UFTA.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 219 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2009). “" RCW 19.40.903. Thus, it is appropriate to look not only to decisions by courts of this state, but also to those of other states operating under the UFTA.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 19.40.903. Thus, it is appropriate to look not only to decisions by courts of this state, but also to those of other states operating under the UFTA.”
BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank (W.D. Wash. 2023). “” 26 RCW § 19.40.903. Thus, “[b]ecause RCW 19.”
Dz Bank Ag Deutsche Zentral v. Louis Meyer (9th Cir. 2017). “2009) (en banc); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.903 (“[WUFTA] shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law .”
Amazon.com Servs. LLC v. Paradigm Clinical Rsch. Inst. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024). “rred 18 or the amount of the obligation incurred; (9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation 19 was incurred; (10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and (11) The…”
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.