Wash. Rev. Code » Title 31 · Chapter 31.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 31.12.575 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The director may issue and serve a credit union director, supervisory committee member, officer, or employee with written notice of intent to remove the person from office or employment or to prohibit the person from participating in the conduct of the affairs of the credit union or any other depositary institution, trust company, bank holding company, thrift holding company, or financial holding company doing business in Washington state in accordance with RCW 31.12.625 whenever, in the opinion of the director:
(1)(a) The person has committed a material violation of law or an unsafe or unsound practice; or
(b) The person has committed a violation or practice involving personal dishonesty, recklessness, or incompetence; and
(2)(a) The credit union has suffered or is likely to suffer substantial financial loss or other damage; or
(b) The interests of the credit union's share account holders and depositors could be seriously prejudiced by reason of the violation or practice.
[ 2015 c 114 s 17; 2010 c 87 s 8; 2001 c 83 s 32; 1997 c 397 s 52; 1994 c 92 s 210; 1984 c 31 s 59.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2006 · leading case: Aitken v. Reed, 949 P.2d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aitken v. Reed, 949 P.2d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The State next contends that since the statute dealing with the regulation of credit unions, RCW 31.12.575, provides that a pretermination hearing is necessary only *486 when the regulator’s formal powers are exercised, no due process requirement exists.”
Save Columbia Credit Union Comm. v. Columbia Cmty. Credit Union, 134 Wash. App. 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 31.12.575(1). Thus, the extensive regulatory oversight that the legislature provides for credit unions suggests that the legislature did not intend for individual members to bring actions against a credit union’s directors; rather, the legislature contemplated that the DFI…”
Save Columbia CU Comm. v. Columbia Cmty. Credit Union, 139 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The Act also permits the director of the DFI to remove a credit union director or prohibit that director from participating in the conduct of the affairs of the credit union if the director has committed a violation of the law or engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice that…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 31.12.575(1) — 2 cases
Save Columbia Credit Union Comm. v. Columbia Cmty. Credit Union, 134 Wash. App. 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 31.12.575(1). Thus, the extensive regulatory oversight that the legislature provides for credit unions suggests that the legislature did not intend for individual members to bring actions against a credit union’s directors; rather, the legislature contemplated that the DFI…”
Save Columbia CU Comm. v. Columbia Cmty. Credit Union, 139 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The Act also permits the director of the DFI to remove a credit union director or prohibit that director from participating in the conduct of the affairs of the credit union if the director has committed a violation of the law or engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice that…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 31.12.575(4) — 1 case
Aitken v. Reed, 949 P.2d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “The State next contends that since the statute dealing with the regulation of credit unions, RCW 31.12.575, provides that a pretermination hearing is necessary only *486 when the regulator’s formal powers are exercised, no due process requirement exists.”
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.