Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.84
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.330 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any action on a contract or lease entered into after September 21, 1977, where such contract or lease specifically provides that attorneys' fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce the provisions of such contract or lease, shall be awarded to one of the parties, the prevailing party, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or lease or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to costs and necessary disbursements.
Attorneys' fees provided for by this section shall not be subject to waiver by the parties to any contract or lease which is entered into after September 21, 1977. Any provision in any such contract or lease which provides for a waiver of attorneys' fees is void.
As used in this section "prevailing party" means the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered.
[ 2011 c 336 s 131; 1977 ex.s. c 203 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 495 cases (107 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 200 P.3d 683 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 200 P.3d 683 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 35× “We must consider whether, in light of the voluntary dismissal, Kraft is a "prevailing party" as that term is used in RCW 4.84.330. Kraft also asks us to consider whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case with prejudice.”
Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 165 Wash. 2d 481 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 34× “We must consider whether, in light of the voluntary dismissal, Kraft is a “prevailing party” as that term is used in RCW 4.84.330. Kraft also asks us to consider whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case with prejudice.”
Kaintz v. PLG, INC., 197 P.3d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “330 does not authorize an award of attorney fees in this case, but so hold for an entirely different reason. ¶ 9 RCW 4.”
Kaintz v. PLG, Inc., 147 Wash. App. 782 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “330 does not authorize an award of attorney fees in this case but so hold for an entirely different reason. ¶9 RCW 4.84.”
Wachovia SBA Lending v. Kraft, 158 P.3d 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 24× “¶ 1 Deanna Kraft appeals the trial court's refusal to award her attorney fees under RCW 4.84.330 and costs under RCW 4.84.010, .”
Wachovia SBA Lending v. Kraft, 138 Wash. App. 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 24× “¶1 Deanna Kraft appeals the trial court’s refusal to award her attorney fees under RCW 4.84.330 and costs under RCW 4.84.010, .”
Herzog Aluminum, Inc. v. Gen. Am. Window Corp., 692 P.2d 867 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 12× “Is a defendant who successfully defends a breach of contract lawsuit by proving the absence of an enforceable contract entitled to attorney fees on the basis of the purported contract sued upon which would *190 have allowed attorney fees to the plaintiff and on the basis of RCW…”
Quality Food Centers v. Mary Jewell T, L.L.C., 134 Wash. App. 814 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 13× “MJT successfully defended the suit, but when it requested its attorney fees pursuant to the lease and RCW 4.84.330, the court denied them. The lease provided that if either party incurred attorney fees as a result of a breach of the lease, the breaching party would pay the other…”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. Comcast of Washington IV, Inc., 336 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “However, RCW 4.84.330 states, in pertinent part: In any action on a contract or lease entered into after September 21,1977, where such contract or lease specifically provides that attorneys’ fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce the provisions of such contract or lease,…”
Marassi v. Lau, 859 P.2d 605 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “Dynasty appeals the trial court's award of attorney fees. 1 The purchase and sale agreement between Dynasty and the Marassis provided for the award of attorney fees to the *915 "successful party" in a dispute.”
Deep Water Brewing v. Fairway Resources Ltd., 215 P.3d 990 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law awarding the Kenagys attorney fees of $243,000 and costs of $35,000 jointly and severally against Key Development, Jack Johnson, and the Homeowners Association based upon contract (the agreements) and as prevailing party…”
Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 10× “and by RCW 4.84.330, which provides: In any action on a contract or lease .”
Show all 495 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.