Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.100 (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 remedies provided by this chapter shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party is put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed. However, consequential, special, or punitive damages may not be awarded except as specifically provided in this chapter or by other rule of law.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 64.55.100 through 64.55.160 or chapter 64.35 RCW, any right or obligation declared by this chapter is enforceable by judicial proceeding. The arbitration proceedings provided for in RCW 64.55.100 through 64.55.160 shall be considered judicial proceedings for the purposes of this chapter.
[ 2005 c 456 s 20; 2004 c 201 s 2; 1989 c 43 s 1-113.]

Notes:

Effective date—2005 c 456: See RCW 64.55.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 225 P.3d 213 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 225 P.3d 213 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 9× “§§ 1-16 , preempts the judicial enforcement provision of the Washington Condominium Act (WCA), RCW 64.34.100(2). We conclude that the WCA’s judicial enforcement provision is preempted by the FAA and, accordingly, reverse in part the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Satomi Owners…”
Park Avenue Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Buchan Developments, LLC, 71 P.3d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “[29] RCW 64.34.100(1). Buchan argues generally that, as in negligence cases, breach of code requirements should be taken as evidence, but not proof, of breach of warranty.”
Marina Cove Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Isabella Estates, 34 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “9 The terms in RCW 64.34.100 in the context of the statute as a whole reflect no ambiguity.”
Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 507:16 (1986); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 64.34.100(1) (West 1994).”
Park Avenue Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Buchan Developments, L.L.C., 117 Wash. App. 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Homeowners Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc.”
Eagle Point Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Coy, 9 P.3d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “” RCW 64.34.100. A statute’s mandate for liberal construction includes a liberal construction of the statute’s provision for an award of reasonable attorney fees.”
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 139 Wash. App. 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 64.34.100(2). Marina Cove, 109 Wn. App.”
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. SATOMI, LLC, 159 P.3d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “" [40] The Association's complaint alleges the creation of express warranties by public offering statement, advertising materials, advertising statements, and samples. See Clerk's Papers at 6. But the warranty addendum limited the warranties to those in the contract.”
Kruger Clinic Orthopaedics, LLC. v. Regence Blueshield, 138 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2006). “Interpreting the WCA's provision that "any right or obligation declared by this chapter is enforceable by judicial proceeding, " RCW 64.34.100(2) (emphasis added), the Court of Appeals acknowledged that "Washington courts voice a preference for arbitration in other contexts" but…”
Ass'n v. Isabella Estates, 34 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “[9] The terms in *873 RCW 64.34.100 in the context of the statute as a whole reflect no ambiguity.”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps., 459 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 64.34.100. Thus, by the plain language, the Condominium Act provides a direct action for members to sue their condominium association for violations of the Condominium Act or declaration.”
Aspen Grove Owners Ass'n v. Park Promenade Apts., LLC, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “…agrees with the Association that the WCA creates a cause of action for their claims and provides for attorney fees. RCW 64.34.100(2) & .455.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.100(1) — 3 cases
Park Avenue Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Buchan Developments, LLC, 71 P.3d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[29] RCW 64.34.100(1). Buchan argues generally that, as in negligence cases, breach of code requirements should be taken as evidence, but not proof, of breach of warranty.”
Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003). “§ 507:16 (1986); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 64.34.100(1) (West 1994).”
Park Avenue Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Buchan Developments, L.L.C., 117 Wash. App. 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Homeowners Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.100(2) — 8 cases
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 225 P.3d 213 (Wash. 2009). “§§ 1-16 , preempts the judicial enforcement provision of the Washington Condominium Act (WCA), RCW 64.34.100(2). We conclude that the WCA’s judicial enforcement provision is preempted by the FAA and, accordingly, reverse in part the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Satomi Owners…”
Marina Cove Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Isabella Estates, 34 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “9 The terms in RCW 64.34.100 in the context of the statute as a whole reflect no ambiguity.”
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 139 Wash. App. 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 64.34.100(2). Marina Cove, 109 Wn. App.”
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. SATOMI, LLC, 159 P.3d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" [40] The Association's complaint alleges the creation of express warranties by public offering statement, advertising materials, advertising statements, and samples. See Clerk's Papers at 6. But the warranty addendum limited the warranties to those in the contract.”
Kruger Clinic Orthopaedics, LLC. v. Regence Blueshield, 138 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2006). “Interpreting the WCA's provision that "any right or obligation declared by this chapter is enforceable by judicial proceeding, " RCW 64.34.100(2) (emphasis added), the Court of Appeals acknowledged that "Washington courts voice a preference for arbitration in other contexts" but…”
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.