Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.005 (2026)

Declaration of policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
RCW 19.52.005, 19.52.020, 19.52.030, 19.52.032, 19.52.034, and 19.52.036 are enacted in order to protect the residents of this state from debts bearing burdensome interest rates; and in order to better effect the policy of this state to use this state's policies and courts to govern the affairs of our residents and the state; and in recognition of the duty to protect our citizens from oppression generally.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 23 s 2.]

Notes:

Severability—1967 ex.s. c 23: "If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby." [ 1967 ex.s. c 23 s 8.]
Savings—1967 ex.s. c 23: "The provisions of this 1967 amendatory act shall not apply to transactions entered into prior to the effective date hereof." [ 1967 ex.s. c 23 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Aetna Fin. Co. v. Darwin, 691 P.2d 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aetna Fin. Co. v. Darwin, 691 P.2d 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “See RCW 19.52.005; 7 RCW 19.52.080; Baske v. Russell, 67 Wn.”
O'Brien v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 586 P.2d 830 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.52.005 declares the policy of the state in enacting this chapter is: to protect the residents of this state from debts bearing burdensome interest rates; and in order to better effect the policy of this state to use this state's policies and courts to govern the affairs…”
Sparkman & McLean Co. v. Govan Inv. Trust, 478 P.2d 232 (Wash. 1970). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.52.005. Nor does it change the state's policy against usury as explicitly set forth further in an addition to RCW 19.”
Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 637 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1981). “Clearly, the benefit envisioned by our legislature, made explicit in the usury act, RCW 19.52.005, is to protect Washington citizens from unreasonably high interest rates.”
Cuevas v. Montoya, 740 P.2d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The usury statute, RCW 19.52.005, contains a declaration of policy which meets the per se public interest requirement: RCW 19.”
Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013). “See RCW 19.52.005; RCW 19.146.100. Thus, the only elements at issue are the fourth and fifth elements of the CPA.”
Demopolis v. Galvin, 786 P.2d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “RCW 19.52.005; cf. Bakke v. Buck, 21 Wn. App.”
Atlas Credit of California, Inc. v. Hill, 547 P.2d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “” RCW 19.52.005. In so doing, the legislature confirmed a frequently reiterated judicial observation that “[u]sury has long been recognized as a social and economic evil affecting not only the parties to the transaction but society in general.”
Metro Hauling, Inc. v. Daffern, 723 P.2d 32 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “2d 434 (1965); RCW 19.52.005. This paternalistic policy would not be served were we to allow parties to modify their contracts after the debtor is in default, and provide for excessive interest on late payments.”
Liebergesell v. Evans, 597 P.2d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “2d 434 (1965); RCW 19.52.005. Here the defendant/borrowers were far from helpless; they were in a position to propose whatever terms for the loans would induce Ms.”
Brown v. Giger, 738 P.2d 312 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.52.005. Consistent with this policy, when applying the exemption, we should look no further than to the purpose of the individual who incurs the debt.”
Revocable Living Trust of Strand v. Wel-Co Grp., Inc., 86 P.3d 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “A consumer transaction is one that is “primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.