Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127 (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) The failure of the borrower or grantor to bring a civil action to enjoin a foreclosure sale under this chapter may not be deemed a waiver of a claim for damages asserting:
(a) Common law fraud or misrepresentation;
(b) A violation of Title 19 RCW;
(c) Failure of the trustee to materially comply with the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) A violation of RCW 61.24.026.
(2) The nonwaived claims listed under subsection (1) of this section are subject to the following limitations:
(a) The claim must be asserted or brought within two years from the date of the foreclosure sale or within the applicable statute of limitations for such claim, whichever expires earlier;
(b) The claim may not seek any remedy at law or in equity other than monetary damages;
(c) The claim may not affect in any way the validity or finality of the foreclosure sale or a subsequent transfer of the property;
(d) A borrower or grantor who files such a claim is prohibited from recording a lis pendens or any other document purporting to create a similar effect, related to the real property foreclosed upon;
(e) The claim may not operate in any way to encumber or cloud the title to the property that was subject to the foreclosure sale, except to the extent that a judgment on the claim in favor of the borrower or grantor may, consistent with RCW 4.56.190, become a judgment lien on real property then owned by the judgment debtor; and
(f) The relief that may be granted for judgment upon the claim is limited to actual damages. However, if the borrower or grantor brings in the same civil action a claim for violation of chapter 19.86 RCW, arising out of the same alleged facts, relief under chapter 19.86 RCW is limited to actual damages, treble damages as provided for in RCW 19.86.090, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
(3) This section applies only to foreclosures of owner-occupied residential real property.
(4) This section does not apply to the foreclosure of a deed of trust used to secure a commercial loan.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 334 P.3d 529 (Wash. 2014).
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 334 P.3d 529 (Wash. 2014). “Implying the cause of action Frias seeks to assert would be neutral as to most underlying purposes of the legislation and detrimental to one.”
Frizzell v. Murray, 313 P.3d 1171 (Wash. 2013). “We hold *304 that Frizzell waived her claims as to the foreclosure sale and remand her other claims to the trial court for consideration under RCW 61.24.127. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2008, Tamara Frizzell obtained a $100,000 loan from Barbara Murray that Gregory Murray…”
Walker v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 176 Wash. App. 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “19 It did so by amending the DTA to include RCW 61.24.127, which provides that a borrower or grantor does not waive certain claims for damages by failing to bring a civil action to enjoin a foreclosure sale.”
Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Washington, Inc., 276 P.3d 1277 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 61.24.127; Engrossed S.B. 5810, at 8-9, 61st Leg.”
D. Ryan & Rhonda Patrick, Apps v. Wells Fargo, 385 P.3d 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “19 ¶16 In response to the Brown decision, the legislature adopted RCW 61.24.127. 20 RCW 61.24.127(1) lists four types of claim that a plaintiff “may not” waive by failing to use the DTA procedure for obtaining a presale injunction.”
River Stone Holdings NW LLC, V Alice M. Lopez, 395 P.3d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Under RCW 61.24.127(1), the failure to enjoin a foreclosure sale may not be deemed a waiver of four specific types of actions for damages.”
4518 S. 256th, LLC v. Karen L. Gibbon, PS, 382 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 61.24.127(1); see also Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs.”
Bavand v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 309 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” 42 ¶37 RCW 61.24.127 contains similar language to that in RCW 61.”
McDonald v. Onewest Bank, FSB, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “Although RCW 61.24.127 allows the recovery of actual monetary damages in certain circumstances, that provision applies where the borrower has failed to enjoin the trustee’s sale and seeks damages arising from the trustee’s failure to comply with the requirements of the DTA.”
GOSSEN v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “3d 233 ; RCW 61.24.127; RCW 61.24.130. The Gossens’ causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, quiet title, rescission, to set aside default and for an accounting are subject to dismissal pursuant to the waiver provisions of the Deed of Trust Act.”
Meyer v. U.S. Bank N.A. ex rel. Structured Asset Sec. Corp. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates (In re Meyer), 506 B.R. 533 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2014). “2013), the Washington State Court of Appeals stated its disagreement with the holding in Vawter , concluding that Vawter relied on cases which were decided before the legislature enacted the current version of RCW 61.24.127 and before the Washington Supreme Court decided Bain v.”
Travis Mickelson v. Chase Home Fin., 579 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2014). “See Wash.Rev.Code § 61.24.127. Whether the statutory exceptions to waiver are exclusive is an open question under Washington law, see Frizzell, 313 P.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(1) — 23 cases
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 334 P.3d 529 (Wash. 2014). “Implying the cause of action Frias seeks to assert would be neutral as to most underlying purposes of the legislation and detrimental to one.”
D. Ryan & Rhonda Patrick, Apps v. Wells Fargo, 385 P.3d 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “19 ¶16 In response to the Brown decision, the legislature adopted RCW 61.24.127. 20 RCW 61.24.127(1) lists four types of claim that a plaintiff “may not” waive by failing to use the DTA procedure for obtaining a presale injunction.”
Frizzell v. Murray, 313 P.3d 1171 (Wash. 2013). “We hold *304 that Frizzell waived her claims as to the foreclosure sale and remand her other claims to the trial court for consideration under RCW 61.24.127. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2008, Tamara Frizzell obtained a $100,000 loan from Barbara Murray that Gregory Murray…”
River Stone Holdings NW LLC, V Alice M. Lopez, 395 P.3d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Under RCW 61.24.127(1), the failure to enjoin a foreclosure sale may not be deemed a waiver of four specific types of actions for damages.”
4518 S. 256th, LLC v. Karen L. Gibbon, PS, 382 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 61.24.127(1); see also Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(1)(a) — 5 cases
Proctor v. Bank of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2024).
Brad L. & Johnita D. Billings v. Bank Of New York Mellon (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Linda Ames v. Hsbc Bank (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Marquez Vargas v. RRA CP Opportunity Tr. 1 (Wash. 2026).
Mvp Developments, Llc, V. John R. Wilson (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(1)(b) — 1 case
Big Blue Capital Partners Of Wa,llc, App. V Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(1)(c) — 7 cases
River Stone Holdings NW LLC, V Alice M. Lopez, 395 P.3d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Under RCW 61.24.127(1), the failure to enjoin a foreclosure sale may not be deemed a waiver of four specific types of actions for damages.”
D. Ryan & Rhonda Patrick, Apps v. Wells Fargo, 385 P.3d 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “19 ¶16 In response to the Brown decision, the legislature adopted RCW 61.24.127. 20 RCW 61.24.127(1) lists four types of claim that a plaintiff “may not” waive by failing to use the DTA procedure for obtaining a presale injunction.”
Doug Walker, App. v. Quality Loan Svc. Corp. Of Wa., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Doug Walker, App. v. Quality Loan Svc. Corp. Of Wa., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Paul A. & Gloria Malloy v. Quality Loan Serv. Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2) — 9 cases
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 334 P.3d 529 (Wash. 2014). “Implying the cause of action Frias seeks to assert would be neutral as to most underlying purposes of the legislation and detrimental to one.”
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc. (Wash. 2014).
John Thornton v. Debra Fifer & Claudio Mosquera (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
U.s. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Henry Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Christopher E. Larson, Et Ano., V. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2)(a) — 5 cases
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 334 P.3d 529 (Wash. 2014). “Implying the cause of action Frias seeks to assert would be neutral as to most underlying purposes of the legislation and detrimental to one.”
McDonald v. Onewest Bank, FSB, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “Although RCW 61.24.127 allows the recovery of actual monetary damages in certain circumstances, that provision applies where the borrower has failed to enjoin the trustee’s sale and seeks damages arising from the trustee’s failure to comply with the requirements of the DTA.”
David Manning v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Linda Ames v. Hsbc Bank (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc. (Wash. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2)(b) — 5 cases
Merry v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 352 P.3d 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Selene RMOF II Reo Acquisitions II, LLC v. Ward (Wash. 2017).
Christopher E. Larson, Et Ano., V. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Christopher E. Larson, Et Ano, V. New Century Mortg. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
John Reisinger, Et Ux. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2)(c) — 7 cases
Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Washington, Inc., 276 P.3d 1277 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 61.24.127; Engrossed S.B. 5810, at 8-9, 61st Leg.”
River Stone Holdings NW LLC, V Alice M. Lopez, 395 P.3d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Under RCW 61.24.127(1), the failure to enjoin a foreclosure sale may not be deemed a waiver of four specific types of actions for damages.”
Frizzell v. Murray, 313 P.3d 1171 (Wash. 2013). “We hold *304 that Frizzell waived her claims as to the foreclosure sale and remand her other claims to the trial court for consideration under RCW 61.24.127. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2008, Tamara Frizzell obtained a $100,000 loan from Barbara Murray that Gregory Murray…”
Big Blue Capital Partners Of Wa,llc, App. V Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Marcel Maddox Bey v. Guild Mortg. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2)(e) — 1 case
4518 S. 256th, LLC v. Karen L. Gibbon, PS, 382 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 61.24.127(1); see also Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2)(f) — 1 case
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 334 P.3d 529 (Wash. 2014). “Implying the cause of action Frias seeks to assert would be neutral as to most underlying purposes of the legislation and detrimental to one.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(3) — 2 cases
Frizzell v. Murray, 313 P.3d 1171 (Wash. 2013). “We hold *304 that Frizzell waived her claims as to the foreclosure sale and remand her other claims to the trial court for consideration under RCW 61.24.127. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2008, Tamara Frizzell obtained a $100,000 loan from Barbara Murray that Gregory Murray…”
Frizzell v. Murray (Wash. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(4) — 4 cases
Frizzell v. Murray, 313 P.3d 1171 (Wash. 2013). “We hold *304 that Frizzell waived her claims as to the foreclosure sale and remand her other claims to the trial court for consideration under RCW 61.24.127. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2008, Tamara Frizzell obtained a $100,000 loan from Barbara Murray that Gregory Murray…”
vs Developing, Llc, V. Brmk Priest Point, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Frizzell v. Murray (Wash. 2013).
Michael & Helen Uribe v. Libey, Ensley & Nelson, PLLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(l) — 1 case
U.s. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Henry Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(l)(b) — 1 case
Travis Mickelson v. Chase Home Fin., 579 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2014). “See Wash.Rev.Code § 61.24.127. Whether the statutory exceptions to waiver are exclusive is an open question under Washington law, see Frizzell, 313 P.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(l)(c) — 2 cases
Walker v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 176 Wash. App. 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “19 It did so by amending the DTA to include RCW 61.24.127, which provides that a borrower or grantor does not waive certain claims for damages by failing to bring a civil action to enjoin a foreclosure sale.”
Meyer v. U.S. Bank N.A. ex rel. Structured Asset Sec. Corp. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates (In re Meyer), 506 B.R. 533 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2014). “2013), the Washington State Court of Appeals stated its disagreement with the holding in Vawter , concluding that Vawter relied on cases which were decided before the legislature enacted the current version of RCW 61.24.127 and before the Washington Supreme Court decided Bain v.”
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.