Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.224 (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 declaration shall allocate a fraction or percentage of undivided interests in the common elements and in the common expenses of the association, and a portion of the votes in the association, to each unit and state the formulas or methods used to establish those allocations. Those allocations may not discriminate in favor of units owned by the declarant or an affiliate of the declarant.
(2) If units may be added to or withdrawn from the condominium, the declaration shall state the formulas or methods to be used to reallocate the allocated interests among all units included in the condominium after the addition or withdrawal.
(3) The declaration may provide: (a) For cumulative voting only for the purpose of electing members of the board of directors; and (b) for class voting on specified issues affecting the class if necessary to protect valid interests of the class. A declarant may not utilize cumulative or class voting for the purpose of evading any limitation imposed on declarants by this chapter, nor may units constitute a class because they are owned by a declarant.
(4) Except for minor variations due to rounding, the sum of the undivided interests in the common elements and common expense liabilities allocated at any time to all the units must each equal one if stated as fractions or one hundred percent if stated as percentages. In the event of discrepancy between an allocated interest and the result derived from application of the pertinent formula, the allocated interest prevails.
(5) Except where permitted by other sections of this chapter, the common elements are not subject to partition, and any purported conveyance, encumbrance, judicial sale, or other voluntary or involuntary transfer of an undivided interest in the common elements made without the unit to which that interest is allocated is void.
[ 1992 c 220 s 8; 1989 c 43 s 2-107.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “¶19 Implicit in the Tower Association’s argument under RCW 64.34.224 is the assumption that there never should have been separate condominiums for the Tower and the Center.”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps., 459 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12× “The defendants cross appeal and argue that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the common expense liability allocation in the master declaration violates the Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.224(1) and (2) in not awarding their full attorney fees under the 2012 settlement…”
Keller v. Sixty-01 Assocs. of Apt. Owners, 112 P.3d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 64.34.224. In response to the Condominium Act, Sixty-01 homeowners in 1992 voted to amend the Declaration to change the method for allocating common expenses.”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “The defendants cross appeal and argue that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the common expense liability allocation in the master declaration violates the Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.224(1), and (2) in not awarding their full attorney fees under the 2012 settlement…”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “The defendants cross appeal and argue that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the common expense liability allocation in the master declaration violates the Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.224(1), and (2) in not awarding their full attorney fees under the 2012 settlement…”
Mdk Gen. Constr., Llc, V. Aspen Grove Owners Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 64.34.224(5) (emphasis added). 11 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.224(1) — 4 cases
Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “¶19 Implicit in the Tower Association’s argument under RCW 64.34.224 is the assumption that there never should have been separate condominiums for the Tower and the Center.”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps., 459 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “The defendants cross appeal and argue that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the common expense liability allocation in the master declaration violates the Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.224(1) and (2) in not awarding their full attorney fees under the 2012 settlement…”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “The defendants cross appeal and argue that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the common expense liability allocation in the master declaration violates the Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.224(1), and (2) in not awarding their full attorney fees under the 2012 settlement…”
Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “The defendants cross appeal and argue that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the common expense liability allocation in the master declaration violates the Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.224(1), and (2) in not awarding their full attorney fees under the 2012 settlement…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.224(5) — 1 case
Mdk Gen. Constr., Llc, V. Aspen Grove Owners Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 64.34.224(5) (emphasis added). 11 No.”
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.