Wash. Rev. Code » Title 58 · Chapter 58.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.210 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No building permit, septic tank permit, or other development permit, shall be issued for any lot, tract, or parcel of land divided in violation of this chapter or local regulations adopted pursuant thereto unless the authority authorized to issue such permit finds that the public interest will not be adversely affected thereby. The prohibition contained in this section shall not apply to an innocent purchaser for value without actual notice. All purchasers' or transferees' property shall comply with provisions of this chapter and each purchaser or transferee may recover his or her damages from any person, firm, corporation, or agent selling or transferring land in violation of this chapter or local regulations adopted pursuant thereto, including any amount reasonably spent as a result of inability to obtain any development permit and spent to conform to the requirements of this chapter as well as cost of investigation, suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees occasioned thereby. Such purchaser or transferee may as an alternative to conforming his or her property to these requirements, rescind the sale or transfer and recover costs of investigation, suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees occasioned thereby.
[ 2010 c 8 s 18005; 1974 ex.s. c 134 s 10; 1969 ex.s. c 271 s 21.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1974–2017 · leading case: Cory & Melissa Jespersen, V Clark Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 568 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cory & Melissa Jespersen, V Clark Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 568 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 11× “64 RCW does not provide the right of rescission for a purchase at a tax foreclosure sale of an “as is” lot, and RCW 58.17.210 does not control, (2) because the County expressly disclaimed any warranty of title and the Jespersens bought the lot “as is,” the doctrine of caveat…”
Crown Cascade, Inc. v. O'NEAL, 668 P.2d 585 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 9× “Thurston County appeals the trial court's ruling that RCW 58.17.210 requires a county to issue building and development permits to innocent purchasers of lots which were created in violation of the state and local subdivision laws.”
Newport Yacht Basin v. Supreme Nw., 277 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Although RCW 58.17.210 provides that certain permits may not be issued on illegally subdivided property, this section exempts an innocent purchaser from these consequences, indicating that, at minimum, such purchases are permissible.”
Newport Yacht Basin Ass'n of Condo. Owners v. Supreme Nw., Inc., 168 Wash. App. 56 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Although RCW 58.17.210 provides that certain permits may not be issued on illegally subdivided property, this section exempts an innocent purchaser from these consequences, indicating that, at minimum, such purchases are permissible.”
Hornback v. Wentworth, 132 Wash. App. 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “and recover costs of investigation, suit, and reasonable .attorneys’ fees occasioned thereby.”
Busch v. Nervik, 687 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “Accordingly, they sought damages against Nerviks for breach of their contract to convey property free from encumbrances and against Nerviks and Swifts for damages resulting from their violations of RCW 58.17.210. 1 Alternatively, Busches sought rescission of the two deeds by…”
Hoggatt v. Flores, 152 Wash. App. 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “” Flores counterclaimed, reserving the right to seek relief allowed by RCW 58.17.210. ¶7 The Hoggatts moved for summary judgment.”
Hornback v. Wentworth, 132 P.3d 778 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “and recover costs of investigation, suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees occasioned thereby.”
Gilmore v. Hershaw, 521 P.2d 934 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 4× “) RCW 58.17.210 provides in part that a vendee of land divided in violation of the chapter may, as an alternative to conforming his property to the chapter’s requirements, rescind the sale.”
Nagle v. Snohomish Cnty., 119 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “This is fatal to his claim to innocent purchaser status. ¶ 41 In sum, there is nothing in this record to support the argument that the County erroneously applied the law to the facts of this case.”
Hoggatt v. Flores, 218 P.3d 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “" Flores counterclaimed, reserving the right to seek relief allowed by RCW 58.17.210. ¶ 7 The Hoggatts moved for summary judgment.”
City of Seattle v. Crispin, 71 P.3d 208 (Wash. 2003). “” RCW 58.17.210. Specifically at issue in this case is RCW 58.”
Show all 19 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.