Wash. Rev. Code » Title 61 · Chapter 61.30
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.020 (2025)

Forfeiture or foreclosure—Notices—Other remedies not limited

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A purchaser's rights under a real estate contract shall not be forfeited except as provided in this chapter. Forfeiture shall be accomplished by giving and recording the required notices as specified in this chapter. This chapter shall not be construed as prohibiting or limiting any remedy which is not governed or restricted by this chapter and which is otherwise available to the seller or the purchaser. At the seller's option, a real estate contract may be foreclosed in the manner and subject to the law applicable to the foreclosure of a mortgage in this state.
(2) The seller's commencement of an action to foreclose the contract as a mortgage shall not constitute an election of remedies so as to bar the seller from forfeiting the contract under this chapter for the same or different breach. Similarly, the seller's commencement of a forfeiture under this chapter shall not constitute an election of remedies so as to bar the seller from foreclosing the contract as a mortgage. However, the seller shall not maintain concurrently an action to foreclose the contract and a forfeiture under this chapter whether for the same or different breaches. If, after giving or recording a notice of intent to forfeit, the seller elects to foreclose the contract as a mortgage, the seller shall record a notice canceling the notice of intent to forfeit which refers to the notice of intent by its recording number. Not later than ten days after the notice of cancellation is recorded, the seller shall mail or serve copies of the notice of cancellation to each person who was mailed or served the notice of intent to forfeit, and shall post it in a conspicuous place on the property if the notice of intent was posted. The seller need not publish the notice of cancellation.
[ 1988 c 86 s 2; 1985 c 237 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: In re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “RCW 61.30.020. RCW 61.30.010(1) provides the following definition: “Contract” or “real estate contract” means any written agreement for the sale of real property in which legal title to the property is retained by the seller as security for payment of the purchase price.”
Schoneman v. Wilson, 785 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “” RCW 61.30.020. The act requires that the seller give notice of intent to forfeit to the purchaser, following which the purchaser has 90 days in which to "cure" the default.”
Hauf v. Johnston, 21 P.3d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “" RCW 61.30.020(1). However, the sellers in both Kendrick and Davis took back the properties in question after declaring a forfeiture.”
Kofmehl v. Steelman, 816 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “RCW 61.30.020 provides in part: A purchaser's rights under a real estate contract shall not be forfeited except as provided in this chapter.”
Hauf v. Johnston, 105 Wash. App. 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” RCW 61.30.020(1). However, the sellers in both Kendrick and Davis took back the properties in question after declaring a forfeiture.”
Bank of New York v. Marco T. Barbanti, No. 31034-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 61.30.020(1); 18 WILLIAM B. STOEBUCK & JOHN W.”
Arnold v. Moore, 980 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “This is self-evident in the first sentence, which states that “the term ‘purchaser’ means the person denominated in a real estate contract.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.020(1): 5 cases
Schoneman v. Wilson, 785 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “” RCW 61.30.020. The act requires that the seller give notice of intent to forfeit to the purchaser, following which the purchaser has 90 days in which to "cure" the default.”
Hauf v. Johnston, 21 P.3d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" RCW 61.30.020(1). However, the sellers in both Kendrick and Davis took back the properties in question after declaring a forfeiture.”
Hauf v. Johnston, 105 Wash. App. 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “” RCW 61.30.020(1). However, the sellers in both Kendrick and Davis took back the properties in question after declaring a forfeiture.”
Bank of New York v. Marco T. Barbanti, No. 31034-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2013). “RCW 61.30.020(1); 18 WILLIAM B. STOEBUCK & JOHN W.”
Arnold v. Moore, 980 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “This is self-evident in the first sentence, which states that “the term ‘purchaser’ means the person denominated in a real estate contract.”
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.