Wash. Rev. Code » Title 59 · Chapter 59.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.260 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If any moneys are paid to the landlord by the tenant as a deposit or as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental agreement, the lease or rental agreement shall be in writing and shall include the terms and conditions under which the deposit or portion thereof may be withheld by the landlord upon termination of the lease or rental agreement. If all or part of the deposit may be withheld to indemnify the landlord for damages to the premises for which the tenant is responsible, the rental agreement shall be in writing and shall so specify.
(2) No deposit may be collected by a landlord unless the rental agreement is in writing and a written checklist or statement is provided by the landlord to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy specifically describing the condition and cleanliness of or existing damages to the premises, fixtures, equipment, appliances, and furnishings including, but not limited to:
(a) Walls, including wall paint and wallpaper;
(b) Carpets and other flooring;
(c) Furniture; and
(d) Appliances.
(3) The checklist or statement shall be signed and dated by the landlord and the tenant, and the tenant shall be provided with a copy of the signed checklist or statement. The tenant has the right to request one free replacement copy of the written checklist.
(4) No such deposit shall be withheld on account of wear resulting from ordinary use of the premises.
(5) If the landlord collects a deposit without providing a written checklist at the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord is liable to the tenant for the amount of the deposit, and the prevailing party may recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This section does not limit the tenant's right to recover moneys paid as damages or security under RCW 59.18.280.
[ 2023 c 331 s 3; 2011 c 132 s 13; 1983 c 264 s 6; 1973 1st ex.s. c 207 s 26.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2023 c 331: See note following RCW 59.18.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co., Inc., 484 P.3d 1251 (Wash. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co., Inc., 484 P.3d 1251 (Wash. 2021). “RCW 59.18.260. Before collecting any deposit, the landlord must complete a written checklist specifically describing the condition of the premises and provide a copy to the tenant.”
Virginia Chiu & Vincent Liew, Appellants\\cross-resps. V. Brian Hoskins, Respondent\\cross-apps., 534 P.3d 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “What Tenants cannot do is recover the same actual and statutory damages several times simply because the lease includes several unlawful provisions under the SMC. Nor can Tenants simultaneously recover under both the SMC and the RLTA for each violation at issue here.”
Jammeh v. HNN Assocs. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 16× “Plaintiffs’ Putative Classes 14 In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs sought to certify the following 15 classes: 16 HNN CLASS: All former tenants of an HNN managed property in Washington against whom HNN 17 (1) collected a deposit or security without providing a move-in…”
Zachary Combs v. Dong Min Shin (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “060, (4) breach of RCW 59.18.260, and (5) interference with a contractual relationship and business expectancy.”
James S. Black & Co. v. Charron, 587 P.2d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “…property remained and his control of the apartment had not been relinquished, he did not in fact vacate the premises. RCW 59.18.260; RCW 59.18.270.”
Richmond v. Home Partners Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 6× “All persons who moved in on or after September 21, 2019, and from whom Defendants collected a security deposit without providing a move-in written 19 statement or checklist conforming to the criteria stated in RCW 59.18.260 (the “Move-in Subclass”); and 20 E.”
Richmond v. Home Partners Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “18 It adds a claim under one of the RLTA’s provisions on deposits, RCW 59.18.260, which 19 provides, “[i]f the landlord collects a deposit without providing a written checklist [regarding the 20 condition and cleanliness of the property] at the commencement of the tenancy, the…”
Richmond v. Home Partners Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 3× “” RCW 59.18.260. It further provides that within 30 days of the rental 9 agreement’s termination, “the landlord shall give a full and specific statement of the basis for 10 retaining any of the deposit, and any documentation required by (b) of this subsection, together 11 with…”
Ahmet Chabuk, V. Frances Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “RCW 59.18.260. Moneys paid as deposit by a tenant must be kept in a trust account or licensed escrow agent.”
Jammeh v. HNN Assocs. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “cted or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or 5 unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, punitive or compensatory, that 6 were brought or that could have been brought in the Action as of the date this Agreement is 7 executed, relating to Move-Out…”
Caitlin Cromar, Et Ano, V. Tag Realty, Llc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “(citing Stoebuck, supra, at 1032); see RCW 59.18.260, .270, .280. “Under the RLTA, the tenant’s deposit provides security for the performance of the tenant’s obligations under the lease, but ‘[n]o part of the deposit belongs to the landlord unless and until the tenant breaches.”
Caitlin Cromar, Et Ano, V. Tag Realty, Llc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “(citing Stoebuck, supra, at 1032); see RCW 59.18.260, .270, .280. “Under the RLTA, the tenant’s deposit provides security for the performance of the tenant’s obligations under the lease, but ‘[n]o part of the deposit belongs to the landlord unless and until the tenant breaches.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.260(2) — 3 cases
Zachary Combs v. Dong Min Shin (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “060, (4) breach of RCW 59.18.260, and (5) interference with a contractual relationship and business expectancy.”
Jammeh v. HNN Assocs. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). “Plaintiffs’ Putative Classes 14 In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs sought to certify the following 15 classes: 16 HNN CLASS: All former tenants of an HNN managed property in Washington against whom HNN 17 (1) collected a deposit or security without providing a move-in…”
Richmond v. Home Partners Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “All persons who moved in on or after September 21, 2019, and from whom Defendants collected a security deposit without providing a move-in written 19 statement or checklist conforming to the criteria stated in RCW 59.18.260 (the “Move-in Subclass”); and 20 E.”
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.