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

Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.100 (2025)

Effect of forfeiture

✓ 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) The recorded and sworn declaration of forfeiture shall be prima facie evidence of the extent of the forfeiture and compliance with this chapter and, except as otherwise provided in RCW 61.30.040 (1) and (2), conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or the contract or other agreement with the seller, forfeiture of a contract under this chapter shall have the following effects:
(a) The purchaser, and all persons claiming through the purchaser or whose interests are otherwise subordinate to the seller's interest in the property who were given the required notices pursuant to this chapter, shall have no further rights in the contract or the property and no person shall have any right, by statute or otherwise, to redeem the property;
(b) All sums previously paid under the contract by or on behalf of the purchaser shall belong to and be retained by the seller or other person to whom paid; and
(c) All of the purchaser's rights in all improvements made to the property and in unharvested crops and timber thereon at the time the declaration of forfeiture is recorded shall be forfeited to the seller.
(3) The seller shall be entitled to possession of the property ten days after the declaration of forfeiture is recorded or any longer period provided in the contract or any other agreement with the seller. The seller may proceed under chapter 59.12 RCW to obtain such possession. Any person in possession who fails to surrender possession when required shall be liable to the seller for actual damages caused by such failure and for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action.
(4) After the declaration of forfeiture is recorded, the seller shall have no claim against and the purchaser shall not be liable to the seller for any portion of the purchase price unpaid or for any other breach of the purchaser's obligations under the contract, except for damages caused by waste to the property to the extent such waste results in the fair market value of the property on the date the declaration of forfeiture is recorded being less than the unpaid monetary obligations under the contract and all liens or contracts having priority over the seller's interest in the property.
[ 1988 c 86 s 10; 1985 c 237 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1988–1992 · 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 4× “RCW 61.30.100. This forfeiture cuts off the rights in the property of the purchaser and all parties claiming through him who received notice of the intent to forfeit.”
Schultz v. Werelius, 803 P.2d 1334 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “See RCW 61.30.100. [2] Moreover, the assignee could not challenge the forfeiture if he received the assignment after the notice of intent to forfeit was given to the assignor.”
Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co. v. Becker, 825 P.2d 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “From this, the Beckers, relying on RCW 61.30.100(2)(a), contend the note and deed of trust, both integral parts of the transaction between the Slaters and themselves, were extinguished by the Osborn forfeiture.”
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “140(2); and (2) the 10-day period during which the purchaser is entitled to possession of the property, former RCW 61.30.100(2)(c). Mr. Galladora has not argued he was prejudiced by the denial of possession during the 10-day period.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.100(2)(a): 2 cases
Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co. v. Becker, 825 P.2d 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “From this, the Beckers, relying on RCW 61.30.100(2)(a), contend the note and deed of trust, both integral parts of the transaction between the Slaters and themselves, were extinguished by the Osborn forfeiture.”
In re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). “RCW 61.30.100. This forfeiture cuts off the rights in the property of the purchaser and all parties claiming through him who received notice of the intent to forfeit.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.100(2)(c): 2 cases
In re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). “RCW 61.30.100. This forfeiture cuts off the rights in the property of the purchaser and all parties claiming through him who received notice of the intent to forfeit.”
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “140(2); and (2) the 10-day period during which the purchaser is entitled to possession of the property, former RCW 61.30.100(2)(c). Mr. Galladora has not argued he was prejudiced by the denial of possession during the 10-day period.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.100(3): 1 case
In re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). “RCW 61.30.100. This forfeiture cuts off the rights in the property of the purchaser and all parties claiming through him who received notice of the intent to forfeit.”
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.