Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.60

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.224

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every provision in a written instrument relating to real property which purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, occupancy, or lease thereof to individuals of a specified race, creed, color, sex, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sexual orientation, families with children status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or with any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person who is blind, deaf, or physically disabled, and every condition, restriction, or prohibition, including a right of entry or possibility of reverter, which directly or indirectly limits the use or occupancy of real property on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sexual orientation, families with children status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person who is blind, deaf, or physically disabled is void.
(2) It is an unfair practice to insert in a written instrument relating to real property a provision that is void under this section or to honor or attempt to honor such a provision in the chain of title.
[ 2020 c 52 s 16; 2007 c 187 s 15; 2006 c 4 s 16; 1997 c 271 s 16; 1993 c 69 s 8; 1979 c 127 s 10; 1969 ex.s. c 167 s 6.]

Notes:

Severability—1993 c 69: See note following RCW 49.60.030.
Severability—1969 ex.s. c 167: See note following RCW 49.60.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church (2005) wash · cites it 7× “In addition to this grant of equitable relief, the court ruled that the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60.224, 5 prohibited the restrictive covenant found in the habendum clause of the 1956 deed.”
Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church (2005) wash · cites it 7× “In addition to this grant of equitable relief, the court ruled that the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60.224, [5] prohibited the restrictive covenant found in the habendum clause of the 1956 deed.”
Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church (2003) washctapp · cites it 27× “Niemann appeals the trial court's ruling that the language in the deed that VCC is to "Hold said property for the perpetual use of the Protestant Evangelical Churches of the Community of Vaughn, Washington" is an unreasonable and discriminatory restraint on alienation and void…”
Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church (2003) washctapp · cites it 26× “Niemann appeals the trial court’s ruling that the language in the deed that VCC is to “HOLD said property for the perpetual use of the Protestant Evangelical Churches of the Community of Vaughn, Washington” is an unreasonable and discriminatory restraint on alienation and void…”
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005) wash · cites it 5× “1 However, the Homeowners claim that they purchased and developed their properties in reliance on the continued validity and enforceability of the density limitation contained in the last two sentences of the covenant, which has been continuously observed.”
Riste v. Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc. (1980) washctapp · cites it 4× “RCW 49.60.224, law against discrimination, states: (1) Every provision in a written instrument relating to real property which purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, occupancy, or lease thereof to individuals of a specified race, creed, color, national…”
Marquis v. City of Spokane (1996) wash “223, and RCW 49.60.224 were each amended to include description of unfair discriminatory practices against families with children in real estate transactions.”
Double D Manor, Inc. v. Evergreen Meadows Homeowners' Ass'n (1989) colo · cites it 2× “2 (1981); Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 49.60.224(1) (1987); W.”
Westwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Tenhoff (1987) arizctapp · cites it 2× “2 (1981); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 49.60.224 (1) (Supp.”
Rasmussen v. Glass (1993) minnctapp · cites it 2× “(quoting Wash.Rev.Code § 49.60.224 (1980)) (emphasis omitted).”
Alex May v. Spokane County (2021) washctapp · cites it 9× “The court further declared provision (c) of the 1953 declaration of protective covenants void under RCW 49.60.224 and that the provision was stricken by order of the court.”
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005) wash · cites it 5× “[1] However, the Homeowners claim that they purchased and developed their properties in reliance on the continued validity and enforceability of the density limitation contained in the last two sentences of the covenant, which has been continuously observed.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.224(1) — 4 cases
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005) wash “1 However, the Homeowners claim that they purchased and developed their properties in reliance on the continued validity and enforceability of the density limitation contained in the last two sentences of the covenant, which has been continuously observed.”
Double D Manor, Inc. v. Evergreen Meadows Homeowners' Ass'n (1989) colo “2 (1981); Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 49.60.224(1) (1987); W.”
Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church (2003) washctapp “Niemann appeals the trial court’s ruling that the language in the deed that VCC is to “HOLD said property for the perpetual use of the Protestant Evangelical Churches of the Community of Vaughn, Washington” is an unreasonable and discriminatory restraint on alienation and void…”
Westwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Tenhoff (1987) arizctapp “2 (1981); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 49.60.224 (1) (Supp.”
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.