Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140 (2026)
Action to set aside forfeiture
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An action to set aside a forfeiture not otherwise void under RCW 61.30.040(1) may be commenced only after the declaration of forfeiture has been recorded and only as provided in this section, and regardless of whether an action was previously commenced under RCW 61.30.110.
(2) An action to set aside the forfeiture permitted by this section may be commenced only by a person entitled to be given the required notices under RCW 61.30.040 (1) and (2). For all persons given the required notices in accordance with this chapter, such an action shall be commenced by filing and serving the summons and complaint not later than sixty days after the declaration of forfeiture is recorded. Service shall be made upon the seller or the seller's attorney-in-fact, if any, who signed the declaration of forfeiture. Concurrently with commencement of the action, the person bringing the action shall record a lis pendens in each county in which any part of the property is located.
(3) The court may require that all payments specified in the notice of intent shall be paid to the clerk of the court as a condition to maintaining an action to set aside the forfeiture. All payments falling due during the pendency of the action shall be paid to the clerk of the court when due. These payments shall be calculated without regard to any acceleration provision in the contract (except an acceleration because of a transfer, encumbrance, or conveyance of the purchaser's interest in the property when otherwise enforceable) and without regard to the seller's contention the contract has been duly forfeited and shall not include the seller's costs and fees of the forfeiture. The court may make orders regarding the investment or disbursement of these funds and may authorize payments to third parties instead of the clerk of the court.
(4) The forfeiture shall not be set aside unless (a) the rights of bona fide purchasers for value and of bona fide encumbrancers for value of the property would not thereby be adversely affected and (b) the person bringing the action establishes that the seller was not entitled to forfeit the contract at the time the seller purported to do so or that the seller did not materially comply with the requirements of this chapter.
(5) If the purchaser or other person commencing the action establishes a right to set aside the forfeiture, the court shall award the purchaser or other person commencing the action actual damages, if any, and may award the purchaser or other person its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action. If the court finds that the forfeiture was conducted in compliance with this chapter, the court shall award the seller actual damages, if any, and may award the seller its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action.
(6) The seller is entitled to possession of the property and to the rents, issues, and profits thereof during the pendency of an action to set aside the forfeiture: PROVIDED, That the court may provide that possession of the property be delivered to or retained by the purchaser or some other person and may make other provisions for the rents, issues, and profits.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1988–2015 · leading case: Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Galladora actually received the declaration of forfeiture on April 2, 1987, and then timely initiated this action as required by former RCW 61.30.140(2). The failure, if any, did not significantly affect any of Mr.”
McLean v. McLean, 754 P.2d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “In its oral opinion, the court held that the reasons alleged by the buyers in their complaint to set aside the forfeiture under RCW 61.30.140 should have been raised prior to the filing of the declaration of forfeiture in an action under RCW 61.”
Schultz v. Werelius, 803 P.2d 1334 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 61.30.140 is unambiguous as to who has standing to set aside a declaration of forfeiture.”
In Re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). “RCW 61.30.140(2). To prevail in such an action the purchaser must show that the rights of bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers will not be adversely affected, that the seller was not entitled to forfeit the contract, or that the seller did not materially comply with the…”
Ur-Rahman v. Changchun Dev., Ltd., 928 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “13 RCW 61.30.140(2). 14 See, e.g., Schultz v.”
Ford v. Hagel, 920 P.2d 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Ford filed a complaint to set aside the declaration of forfeiture pursuant to RCW 61.30.140. Under the statute, Ms. Ford would have the right to set aside the forfeiture if the Hagels either (1) were not entitled to declare forfeiture at the time they purported to do so or (2)…”
Clarke v. Equinox Holdings, Ltd., 783 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “shall be commenced by filing the summons and complaint and serving the seller or the seller's agent or attorney, if any, giving either of the required notices, not later than sixty days after the declaration of forfeiture is recorded.”
Lewis Rudolph Morgan v. Steven P. Adams (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “" RCW 61.30.140(4){b). Here, the parties' contract states if Mr.”
Bays v. Bays (In Re Bays), 413 B.R. 866 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2009). “The first paragraph of this complaint provides in part as follows: THIS COMPLAINT is made pursuant to RCW 61.30.140(4X5), and based upon the fact that the plaintiff, Linda Bays, did pay off the real estate contract that was forfeited.”
North Coast Mortg. Inv., Inc. v. Dunning, 813 P.2d 1254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Pursuant to RCW 61.30.140(5), the Dun-nings are awarded their reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal, provided they timely comply with the requirements of RAP 18.”
Arnold v. Moore, 980 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “” It is evident in the third sentence because, if the term “purchaser” did not encompass successors and assigns, it would be unnecessary to exclude from the meaning of that term those assignees “whose only interest or claim is in the nature of a lien or other security interest.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(1) — 1 case
McLean v. McLean, 754 P.2d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “In its oral opinion, the court held that the reasons alleged by the buyers in their complaint to set aside the forfeiture under RCW 61.30.140 should have been raised prior to the filing of the declaration of forfeiture in an action under RCW 61.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(2) — 7 cases
Schultz v. Werelius, 803 P.2d 1334 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 61.30.140 is unambiguous as to who has standing to set aside a declaration of forfeiture.”
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Galladora actually received the declaration of forfeiture on April 2, 1987, and then timely initiated this action as required by former RCW 61.30.140(2). The failure, if any, did not significantly affect any of Mr.”
In Re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). “RCW 61.30.140(2). To prevail in such an action the purchaser must show that the rights of bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers will not be adversely affected, that the seller was not entitled to forfeit the contract, or that the seller did not materially comply with the…”
Ur-Rahman v. Changchun Dev., Ltd., 928 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “13 RCW 61.30.140(2). 14 See, e.g., Schultz v.”
Clarke v. Equinox Holdings, Ltd., 783 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “shall be commenced by filing the summons and complaint and serving the seller or the seller's agent or attorney, if any, giving either of the required notices, not later than sixty days after the declaration of forfeiture is recorded.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(4) — 5 cases
In Re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988). “RCW 61.30.140(2). To prevail in such an action the purchaser must show that the rights of bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers will not be adversely affected, that the seller was not entitled to forfeit the contract, or that the seller did not materially comply with the…”
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Galladora actually received the declaration of forfeiture on April 2, 1987, and then timely initiated this action as required by former RCW 61.30.140(2). The failure, if any, did not significantly affect any of Mr.”
McLean v. McLean, 754 P.2d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “In its oral opinion, the court held that the reasons alleged by the buyers in their complaint to set aside the forfeiture under RCW 61.30.140 should have been raised prior to the filing of the declaration of forfeiture in an action under RCW 61.”
Ford v. Hagel, 920 P.2d 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Ford filed a complaint to set aside the declaration of forfeiture pursuant to RCW 61.30.140. Under the statute, Ms. Ford would have the right to set aside the forfeiture if the Hagels either (1) were not entitled to declare forfeiture at the time they purported to do so or (2)…”
Lewis Rudolph Morgan v. Steven P. Adams (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “" RCW 61.30.140(4){b). Here, the parties' contract states if Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(4)(a) — 1 case
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Galladora actually received the declaration of forfeiture on April 2, 1987, and then timely initiated this action as required by former RCW 61.30.140(2). The failure, if any, did not significantly affect any of Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(4)(b) — 3 cases
Galladora v. Richter, 764 P.2d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Galladora actually received the declaration of forfeiture on April 2, 1987, and then timely initiated this action as required by former RCW 61.30.140(2). The failure, if any, did not significantly affect any of Mr.”
Ford v. Hagel, 920 P.2d 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Ford filed a complaint to set aside the declaration of forfeiture pursuant to RCW 61.30.140. Under the statute, Ms. Ford would have the right to set aside the forfeiture if the Hagels either (1) were not entitled to declare forfeiture at the time they purported to do so or (2)…”
Lewis Rudolph Morgan v. Steven P. Adams (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “" RCW 61.30.140(4){b). Here, the parties' contract states if Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(4X5) — 1 case
Bays v. Bays (In Re Bays), 413 B.R. 866 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2009). “The first paragraph of this complaint provides in part as follows: THIS COMPLAINT is made pursuant to RCW 61.30.140(4X5), and based upon the fact that the plaintiff, Linda Bays, did pay off the real estate contract that was forfeited.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 61.30.140(5) — 4 cases
Ur-Rahman v. Changchun Dev., Ltd., 928 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “13 RCW 61.30.140(2). 14 See, e.g., Schultz v.”
Ford v. Hagel, 920 P.2d 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Ford filed a complaint to set aside the declaration of forfeiture pursuant to RCW 61.30.140. Under the statute, Ms. Ford would have the right to set aside the forfeiture if the Hagels either (1) were not entitled to declare forfeiture at the time they purported to do so or (2)…”
McLean v. McLean, 754 P.2d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “In its oral opinion, the court held that the reasons alleged by the buyers in their complaint to set aside the forfeiture under RCW 61.30.140 should have been raised prior to the filing of the declaration of forfeiture in an action under RCW 61.”
North Coast Mortg. Inv., Inc. v. Dunning, 813 P.2d 1254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Pursuant to RCW 61.30.140(5), the Dun-nings are awarded their reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal, provided they timely comply with the requirements of RAP 18.”
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.