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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.030 (2026)

Usury—Penalty upon suit on contract—Costs and attorneys' fees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If a greater rate of interest than is allowed by statute shall be contracted for or received or reserved, the contract shall be usurious, but shall not, therefore, be void. If in any action on such contract proof be made that greater rate of interest has been directly or indirectly contracted for or taken or reserved, the creditor shall only be entitled to the principal, less the amount of interest accruing thereon at the rate contracted for; and if interest shall have been paid, the creditor shall only be entitled to the principal less twice the amount of the interest paid, and less the amount of all accrued and unpaid interest; and the debtor shall be entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys' fees plus the amount by which the amount the debtor has paid under the contract exceeds the amount to which the creditor is entitled: PROVIDED, That the debtor may not commence an action on the contract to apply the provisions of this section if a loan or forbearance is made to a corporation engaged in a trade or business for the purposes of carrying on said trade or business unless there is also, in connection with such loan or forbearance, the creation of liability on the part of a natural person or that person's property for an amount in excess of the principal plus interest allowed pursuant to RCW 19.52.020. The reduction in principal shall be applied to diminish pro rata each future installment of principal payable under the terms of the contract.
(2) The acts and dealings of an agent in loaning money shall bind the principal, and in all cases where there is usurious interest contracted for by the transaction of any agent the principal shall be held thereby to the same extent as though the principal had acted in person. Where the same person acts as agent of the borrower and lender, that person shall be deemed the agent of the lender for the purposes of this chapter. If the agent of both the borrower and lender, or of the lender only, transacts a usurious loan for a commission or fee, such agent shall be liable to the principal for the amount of the commission or fee received or reserved by the agent, and liable to the lender for the loss suffered by the lender as a result of the application of this chapter.
[ 1989 c 14 s 7; 1967 ex.s. c 23 s 5; 1899 c 80 s 7; RRS s 7304. Prior: 1895 c 136 s 5; 1893 c 20 s 3. Formerly RCW 19.52.030 through 19.52.050.]

Notes:

Severability—Savings—1967 ex.s. c 23: See notes following RCW 19.52.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Paulman v. Filtercorp, Inc., 899 P.2d 1259 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paulman v. Filtercorp, Inc., 899 P.2d 1259 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 66× “I Enacted in 1967, RCW 19.52.030 sets forth the penalties available to a debtor who has borrowed money from a lender at a usurious interest rate.”
Topline Equip., Inc. v. Stan Witty Land, Inc., 639 P.2d 825 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “010, but refused to impose the usury penalties provided for in RCW 19.52.030. Topline also challenges a jury award of $40,000 for tortious contract interference.”
Thweatt v. Hommel, 834 P.2d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “7 *142 After applying the statutory formula for computing the usury penalty, see RCW 19.52.030(1), and treating the penalty as an offset against the principal balance due on the note, the court determined the balance due Robert Hommel to be zero.”
MacKey v. Maurer, 220 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “Mackey's affirmative action seeking to establish usury and to apply RCW 19.52.030's penalties was necessarily an action under RCW 19.”
Busk v. Hoard, 396 P.2d 171 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 7× “If Stevens-Norton Company acted as agent for Busk, the lender, as well as for Hoards, the borrowers, the arithmetic of the transaction, coupled with the express statutory policy on agency, makes it usurious under RCW 19.52.030, which provides: "If a greater rate of interest than…”
Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wash. App. 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “Mackey’s affirmative action seeking to establish usury and to apply RCW 19.52.030’s penalties was necessarily an action under RCW 19.”
Demopolis v. Galvin, 786 P.2d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “030(1) provides that if a loan is usurious, the creditor is entitled to only "the principal less twice the amount of the interest paid, and less the amount of all accrued and unpaid interest". The creditor must pay all of the debtor's costs and reasonable attorney fees, and…”
Liebergesell v. Evans, 613 P.2d 1170 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “26 from the $23,500 due, relying on usury as an affirmative defense pursuant to RCW 19.52.030, which provides a penalty of double the amount paid in illegal interest.”
Aetna Fin. Co. v. Darwin, 691 P.2d 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “Darwin the amounts due her under RCW 19.52.030. The cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment awarding Mrs.”
Bingham v. Lechner, 45 P.3d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[5] RCW 19.52.030. [6] The counterclaim was essentially identical to the creditor's claim Demopolis had unsuccessfully filed against Bernice Bingham's estate.”
Atlas Credit of California, Inc. v. Hill, 547 P.2d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “The trial judge concluded that it was and imposed penalties as provided by Washington’s usury statute, RCW 19.52.030. We do not agree. The undisputed facts are that Superior State Construction Company, Inc.”
Bingham v. Lechner, 111 Wash. App. 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 19.52.030. The counterclaim was essentially identical to the creditor’s claim Demopolis had unsuccessfully filed against Bernice Bingham’s estate.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.030(1) — 12 cases
Paulman v. Filtercorp, Inc., 899 P.2d 1259 (Wash. 1995). “I Enacted in 1967, RCW 19.52.030 sets forth the penalties available to a debtor who has borrowed money from a lender at a usurious interest rate.”
Thweatt v. Hommel, 834 P.2d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “7 *142 After applying the statutory formula for computing the usury penalty, see RCW 19.52.030(1), and treating the penalty as an offset against the principal balance due on the note, the court determined the balance due Robert Hommel to be zero.”
Demopolis v. Galvin, 786 P.2d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “030(1) provides that if a loan is usurious, the creditor is entitled to only "the principal less twice the amount of the interest paid, and less the amount of all accrued and unpaid interest". The creditor must pay all of the debtor's costs and reasonable attorney fees, and…”
MacKey v. Maurer, 220 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Mackey's affirmative action seeking to establish usury and to apply RCW 19.52.030's penalties was necessarily an action under RCW 19.”
Aetna Fin. Co. v. Darwin, 691 P.2d 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “Darwin the amounts due her under RCW 19.52.030. The cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment awarding Mrs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.030(2) — 3 cases
Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Mortg. Corp., 768 P.2d 1007 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
Marashi v. Lannen, 780 P.2d 1341 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
Durias v. Boswell, 791 P.2d 282 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.030(l) — 1 case
Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wash. App. 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Mackey’s affirmative action seeking to establish usury and to apply RCW 19.52.030’s penalties was necessarily an action under RCW 19.”
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.