Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.264 (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) Except in cases of amendments that may be executed by a declarant under RCW 64.34.232(6) or 64.34.236; the association under RCW 64.34.060, 64.34.220(5), 64.34.228(3), 64.34.244(1), 64.34.248, or 64.34.268(8); or certain unit owners under RCW 64.34.228(2), 64.34.244(1), 64.34.248(2), or 64.34.268(2), and except as limited by subsection (4) of this section, the declaration, including the survey maps and plans, may be amended only by vote or agreement of unit owners of units to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the association are allocated, or any larger percentage the declaration specifies: PROVIDED, That the declaration may specify a smaller percentage only if all of the units are restricted exclusively to nonresidential use.

(2) No action to challenge the validity of an amendment adopted by the association pursuant to this section may be brought more than one year after the amendment is recorded.

(3) Every amendment to the declaration must be recorded in every county in which any portion of the condominium is located, and is effective only upon recording. An amendment shall be indexed in the name of the condominium and shall contain a cross-reference by recording number to the declaration and each previously recorded amendment thereto.

(4) Except to the extent expressly permitted or required by other provisions of this chapter, no amendment may create or increase special declarant rights, increase the number of units, change the boundaries of any unit, the allocated interests of a unit, or the uses to which any unit is restricted, in the absence of the vote or agreement of the owner of each unit particularly affected and the owners of units to which at least ninety percent of the votes in the association are allocated other than the declarant or such larger percentage as the declaration provides.

(5) Amendments to the declaration required by this chapter to be recorded by the association shall be prepared, executed, recorded, and certified on behalf of the association by any officer of the association designated for that purpose or, in the absence of designation, by the president of the association.

(6) No amendment may restrict, eliminate, or otherwise modify any special declarant right provided in the declaration without the consent of the declarant and any mortgagee of record with a security interest in the special declarant right or in any real property subject thereto, excluding mortgagees of units owned by persons other than the declarant.

[1989 c 43 s 2-117.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n, 375 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n, 375 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 16× “¶5 Bilanko sued Barclay Court on July 14,2014, alleging that the leasing amendment was invalid because it had not received sufficient votes to change the “uses to which any [u]nit is restricted” under RCW 64.34.264 and the Declaration. CP at 1-7.”

Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condo. Ass'n, 337 P.3d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “Club Envy argued RCW 64.34.264 and 64.34.348 prohibited certain acts embodied in the second amended declaration taken by the former officers and directors of the Ridpath Tower Condominium Association and its president, Greg Jeffreys.”

Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass'n, 183 Wash. App. 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 19× “” 2 The amendment stated, “[P]ursuant to RCW 64.34.264 and Section 17.1 of the Declaration, the Declaration of this Condominium may be amended by the vote or agreement of owners of units to which at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes in the Association are allocated”…”

Parker Estates, Bluestone, Hockley, V William & Lesley Pattison, 391 P.3d 481 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “at 599-600, the statute at issue, RCW 64.34.264(2) of the Washington Condominium Act, provided for a statute of limitations of one year to challenge the validity of an amendment to a condominium instrument created pursuant to that act.”

Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass'n of Centre Pointe Condo., 355 P.3d 1128 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 12× “264(4), however, provides an exception to that general rule, requiring the vote or agreement of the owner of each unit particularly affected and the owners of units to which at least 90 percent of the votes are allocated for an amendment that “may create or increase special…”

Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “See RCW 64.34.264(4). 2 Senate Journal, 51st Leg.”

Keller v. Sixty-01 Assocs. of Apt. Owners, 112 P.3d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “264(2) prevents challenges to an amendment from being brought more than one year after the amendment is recorded. They also claim that the general six-year limitation for claims of breach of written contracts in RCW 4.”

Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n (Wash. 2016). · cites it 16× “Bilanko sued Barclay Court on July 14, 2014, alleging that the leasing amendment was invalid because it had not received sufficient votes to change the "uses to which any [u]nit is restricted" under RCW 64.34.264 and the Declaration. CP at 1-7.”

Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n (Wash. 2016). · cites it 14× “Bilanko sued Barclay Court on July 14, 2014, alleging that the leasing amendment was invalid because it had not received sufficient votes to change the "uses to which any [u]nit is restricted" under RCW 64.34.264 and the Declaration. CP at 1-7.”

Filmore, Lllp, Res. v. Unit Owners Ass'n Of Centre Pointe Condo. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 21× “Specifically, RCW 64.34.264, entitled "Amendment of declaration," provides in relevant part: (1) Except in cases of amendments that may be executed by a declarant under RCW 64.”

Club Envy Spokane llc v. Ridpath Tower Condo. Assoc (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14× “Club Envy argued RCW 64.34.264 and 64.34.348 prohibited certain acts embodied in the second amended declaration taken by the former officers and directors of The Ridpath Tower Condominium Association, and its president, Greg Jeffreys.”

Filmore, LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass'n of Centre Pointe Condo. (Wash. 2015). · cites it 12× “We find that the amendment does change "the uses to which any unit is restricted" under this particular declaration because the declaration provides that leasing is a use, and, therefore, special supermajority approval was required for the amendment.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.264(1) — 10 cases

Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condo. Ass'n, 337 P.3d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Club Envy argued RCW 64.34.264 and 64.34.348 prohibited certain acts embodied in the second amended declaration taken by the former officers and directors of the Ridpath Tower Condominium Association and its president, Greg Jeffreys.”

Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass'n of Centre Pointe Condo., 355 P.3d 1128 (Wash. 2015). “264(4), however, provides an exception to that general rule, requiring the vote or agreement of the owner of each unit particularly affected and the owners of units to which at least 90 percent of the votes are allocated for an amendment that “may create or increase special…”

Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass'n, 183 Wash. App. 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “” 2 The amendment stated, “[P]ursuant to RCW 64.34.264 and Section 17.1 of the Declaration, the Declaration of this Condominium may be amended by the vote or agreement of owners of units to which at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes in the Association are allocated”…”

Shamim Mohandessi & Joseph Grace, Apps/cross-res. v. Urban Venture, Llc, Res/cross-apps., 459 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Filmore, Lllp, Res. v. Unit Owners Ass'n Of Centre Pointe Condo. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Specifically, RCW 64.34.264, entitled "Amendment of declaration," provides in relevant part: (1) Except in cases of amendments that may be executed by a declarant under RCW 64.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.264(2) — 7 cases

Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n, 375 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2016). “¶5 Bilanko sued Barclay Court on July 14,2014, alleging that the leasing amendment was invalid because it had not received sufficient votes to change the “uses to which any [u]nit is restricted” under RCW 64.34.264 and the Declaration. CP at 1-7.”

Parker Estates, Bluestone, Hockley, V William & Lesley Pattison, 391 P.3d 481 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “at 599-600, the statute at issue, RCW 64.34.264(2) of the Washington Condominium Act, provided for a statute of limitations of one year to challenge the validity of an amendment to a condominium instrument created pursuant to that act.”

Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n (Wash. 2016). “Bilanko sued Barclay Court on July 14, 2014, alleging that the leasing amendment was invalid because it had not received sufficient votes to change the "uses to which any [u]nit is restricted" under RCW 64.34.264 and the Declaration. CP at 1-7.”

Keller v. Sixty-01 Assocs. of Apt. Owners, 112 P.3d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “264(2) prevents challenges to an amendment from being brought more than one year after the amendment is recorded. They also claim that the general six-year limitation for claims of breach of written contracts in RCW 4.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.264(4) — 7 cases

Bellevue Pac. Ctr. Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Bellevue Pac. Tower Condo. Ass'n, 100 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “See RCW 64.34.264(4). 2 Senate Journal, 51st Leg.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.264(5) — 3 cases

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.