Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 31.04.105 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every licensee may:
(1) Lend money at a rate that does not exceed twenty-five percent per annum as determined by the simple interest method of calculating interest owed;
(2) In connection with the making of a loan, charge the borrower a nonrefundable, prepaid, loan origination fee not to exceed four percent of the first twenty thousand dollars and two percent thereafter of the principal amount of the loan advanced to or for the direct benefit of the borrower, which fee may be included in the principal balance of the loan;
(3) Agree with the borrower for the payment of fees to third parties other than the licensee who provide goods or services to the licensee in connection with the preparation of the borrower's loan, including, but not limited to, credit reporting agencies, title companies, appraisers, structural and pest inspectors, and escrow companies, when such fees are actually paid by the licensee to a third party for such services or purposes and may include such fees in the amount of the loan. However, no charge may be collected unless a loan is made, except for reasonable fees properly incurred for a credit report and in connection with the appraisal of property by a qualified, independent, professional, third-party appraiser selected by the borrower and approved by the lender or in the absence of borrower selection, selected by the lender;
(4) In connection with the making of a loan secured by real estate, when the borrower actually obtains a loan, agree with the borrower to pay a fee to a mortgage broker that is not owned by the licensee or under common ownership with the licensee and that performed services in connection with the origination of the loan. A licensee may not receive compensation as a mortgage broker in connection with any loan made by the licensee;
(5) Collect at the time of the loan closing up to but not exceeding forty-five days of prepaid interest;
(6) Charge and collect a penalty of not more than ten percent of any installment payment delinquent ten days or more;
(7) Collect from the debtor reasonable attorneys' fees, actual expenses, and costs incurred in connection with the collection of a delinquent debt, a repossession, or a foreclosure when a debt is referred for collection to an attorney who is not a salaried employee of the licensee;
(8) Make open-end loans as provided in this chapter;
(9) Charge and collect a fee for dishonored checks in an amount approved by the director; and
(10) In accordance with Title 48 RCW, sell insurance covering real and personal property, covering the life or disability or both of the borrower, and covering the involuntary unemployment of the borrower.
[ 2015 c 229 s 28; 2013 c 29 s 7; 2009 c 120 s 7; 2001 c 81 s 10; 1998 c 28 s 1; 1994 c 92 s 167; 1993 c 190 s 1; 1991 c 208 s 11.]

Notes:

FindingsDeclaration2009 c 120: See note following RCW 31.04.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013).
Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013). “RCW 31.04.105(1). However, no one may make loans at this higher rate without first obtaining a license.”
Bell v. Muller, 118 P.3d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “020(1) authorizes an interest rate at 12 percent per annum or 4 percentage points above the recent average treasury bill rate, while RCW 31.04.105 allows licensees to exceed this rate up to 25 percent.”
Jonathan D. Clausen v. WBL SPO I, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “RCW 31.04.105(1). Not all lenders who provide high-interest loans are subject to the CLA.”
Pierce v. NovaStar Mortg., Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “In the reply, the plaintiffs ask that the Court redefine the class to encompass violations of disclosure requirements in HUD-1 statements and violations of RCW 31.04.105(4). Dkt. 228 at 12. Because it appears for the first time in the reply, the defendant has been deprived of an…”
Penny Arneson v. Gary Nordlund (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “" Former RCW 31.04.105 (2008). By contrast, the highest rate generally permitted under the usury statute was 12 percent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 31.04.105(1) — 3 cases
Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce), 491 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013). “RCW 31.04.105(1). However, no one may make loans at this higher rate without first obtaining a license.”
Bell v. Muller, 118 P.3d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “020(1) authorizes an interest rate at 12 percent per annum or 4 percentage points above the recent average treasury bill rate, while RCW 31.04.105 allows licensees to exceed this rate up to 25 percent.”
Jonathan D. Clausen v. WBL SPO I, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 31.04.105(1). Not all lenders who provide high-interest loans are subject to the CLA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 31.04.105(4) — 1 case
Pierce v. NovaStar Mortg., Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “In the reply, the plaintiffs ask that the Court redefine the class to encompass violations of disclosure requirements in HUD-1 statements and violations of RCW 31.04.105(4). Dkt. 228 at 12. Because it appears for the first time in the reply, the defendant has been deprived of an…”
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.