Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 63.14.152 (2026)

Declaratory judgment action to establish if service charge is excessive

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The seller, holder, or buyer may bring an action for declaratory judgment to establish whether service charges contracted for or received in connection with a retail installment transaction are in excess of those allowed by chapter 234, Laws of 1967. Such an action shall be brought against the current holder or against the buyer or his or her successor in interest or, if the entire principal balance has been fully paid, by the buyer or his or her successor in interest against the holder to whom the final payment was made. No such action shall be commenced after six months following the date the final payment becomes due, whether by acceleration or otherwise, nor after six months following the date the principal balance is fully paid, whichever first occurs. If the buyer commences such an action and fails to establish that the service charge is in excess of that allowed by RCW 63.14.130, and if the court finds the action was frivolously commenced, the defendant or defendants may, in the court's discretion, recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the buyer.

[ 2012 c 117 s 173; 1967 c 234 s 11.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1975–1997 · leading case: Cazzanigi v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 938 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cazzanigi v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 938 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 6× “180, their claims were barred by the six-month time limit of RCW 63.14.152. In an order dated October 7, 1994, the trial court granted both sides' motions for partial summary judgment.”

Johnston v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 538 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “[6] The trial court correctly held that the claims based upon the retail installment sales act and the usury statute were barred by the statutes of limitations provided in those acts.”

Cazzanigi v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 132 Wash. 2d 433 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 6× “180, their claims were barred by the six-month time limit of RCW 63.14.152. In an order dated October 7, 1994, the trial court granted both sides’ motions for partial summary judgment.”

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.