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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.032 (2026)

Declaratory judgment action to establish usury—Time limitations for commencing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The debtor, if a natural person, or the creditor may bring an action for declaratory judgment to establish whether a loan or forbearance contract is or was usurious, and such an action shall be considered an action on the contract for the purposes of applying the provisions of RCW 19.52.030. Such an action shall be brought against the current creditor or debtor on the contract or, if the loan or debt has been fully repaid, by the debtor against the creditor to whom the debtor was last indebted on the contract. No such an action shall be commenced after six months following the date the final payment becomes due, whether by acceleration or otherwise, nor after six months following the date the principal is fully paid, whichever first occurs. If the debtor commences such an action and fails to establish usury, and if the court finds the action was frivolously commenced, the defendant or defendants may, in the court's discretion, recover reasonable attorney's fees from the debtor.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 23 s 6.]

Notes:

Severability—Savings—1967 ex.s. c 23: See notes following RCW 19.52.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1972–2019 · leading case: MacKey v. Maurer, 220 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MacKey v. Maurer, 220 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 22× “¶ 2 We conclude that the prescribed remedy, a declaratory judgment under RCW 19.”
Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wash. App. 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 22× “*109 ¶1 Kasey Mackey appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his statutory usury action as time barred under RCW 19.52.032’s six-month statute of limitations.”
Thweatt v. Hommel, 834 P.2d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “II Attorney Fees Hommel seeks to be awarded his attorney fees, below and for this appeal. Paragraph 4 of the deed of trust provides that the grantor shall pay attorney fees in a reasonable amount for any suit brought to foreclose the deed of trust.”
King v. W. United Assur. Co., 997 P.2d 1007 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “[6] this court held that a specific attorney fees provision of the usury statute, RCW 19.52.032, [7] conflicted with and superceded the general attorney fees provision of RCW 4.”
Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “The statute of limitations under RCW 19.52.032 provides that “[n]o such an action shall be commenced after six months following the date the final payment becomes due, whether by acceleration or otherwise, nor after six months following the date the principal is fully paid,…”
Johnston v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 538 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.52.032 contains an identical provision.”
Flannery v. Bishop, 504 P.2d 778 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 4× “Having determined that there is evidence to support the findings of the trial judge, we do not inquire further as to the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Castronuevo v. Gen. Acceptance Corp., 905 P.2d 387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “330 and RCW 19.52.032. The latter statute provides in part: If the debtor commences [a declaratory judgment] action and fails to establish usury, and if the court finds the action was frivolously commenced, the defendant or defendants may, in the court’s discretion, recover…”
Crouch v. Friedman, 754 P.2d 1299 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Thereafter, this action in malpractice was filed by Crouch, alleging that Friedman failed to assert a meritorious defense to the Kramis lawsuit based on RCW 19.52.032. On August 7, 1984, Crouch went to Friedman's office and served Friedman with two copies of the summons and…”
King v. W. United Assurance Co., 100 Wash. App. 556 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “6 this court held that a specific attorney fees provision of the usury statute, RCW 19.52.032, 7 conflicted with and superceded the general attorney fees provision of RCW 4.”
McGovern v. Smith, 801 P.2d 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “They further contend that RCW 19.52.032 is unconstitutional because it violates the state constitution's privileges and immunities clause, as set forth in Const, art.”
Gemperle v. Crouch, 724 P.2d 375 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Appellant asserts that the respondents failed to bring their action within the 6-month time limit imposed by RCW 19.52.032. 6 Apart from arguments relating to whether or not this issue was properly raised and when, the very language of the statute answers the question.”
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.