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

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.405 (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 as provided in subsection (2) of this section or when no public offering statement is required, a declarant shall prepare a public offering statement conforming to the requirements of RCW 64.34.410 and 64.34.415.
(2) A declarant may transfer responsibility for preparation of all or a part of the public offering statement to a successor declarant pursuant to RCW 64.34.316 or to a dealer who intends to offer units in the condominium for the person's own account.
(3) Any declarant or dealer who offers a unit for the person's own account to a purchaser shall deliver a public offering statement in the manner prescribed in RCW 64.34.420(1). Any agent, attorney, or other person assisting the declarant or dealer in preparing the public offering statement may rely upon information provided by the declarant or dealer without independent investigation. The agent, attorney, or other person shall not be liable for any material misrepresentation in or omissions of material facts from the public offering statement unless the person had actual knowledge of the misrepresentation or omission at the time the public offering statement was prepared. The declarant or dealer shall be liable for any misrepresentation contained in the public offering statement or for any omission of material fact therefrom if the declarant or dealer had actual knowledge of the misrepresentation or omission or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the misrepresentation or omission.
(4) If a unit is part of a condominium and is part of another real property regime in connection with the sale of which the delivery of a public offering statement is required under the laws of this state, a single public offering statement, conforming to the requirements of RCW 64.34.410 and 64.34.415 as those requirements relate to all real property regimes in which the unit is located and conforming to any other requirements imposed under the laws of this state, may be prepared and delivered in lieu of providing two or more public offering statements.
[1989 c 43 s 4-102.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2001–2012 · leading case: One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Investments, Inc., 61 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Investments, Inc., 61 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 5× “RCW 64.34.405, RCW 64.34.410. [5] Following the sale of all of the condominium units in 1997 and 1998, the OPT entities were dissolved.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Inv., 30 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “[ [5] ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners' Ass'n v. HAL Real Est. Investments, Inc., 108 Wash. App. 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “[ 5 ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., Inc., 103 P.3d 1256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “[26] RCW 64.34.405(1). [27] RCW 64.34.410. For example, a POS must contain the condominium's name and address, the declarant's name and address, the management company's name and address, and the relationship between the declarant and the management company.”
Marina Condo. Homeowner's Ass'n v. Stratford at the Marina, LLC, 254 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “344; breach of duty to repair common elements; and misrepresentation and breach of RCW 64.34.405 and 64.34.410. Stratford also argues that in addition to abusing its discretion, the trial court erred as a matter of law, because it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the HOA’s…”
Aspen Grove Owners Ass'n v. Park Promenade Apts., LLC, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “The second of the Association’s theories is that the Directors were liable under RCW 64.34.405, .100(2), and .455 for unreasonable omissions from the public offering statement (“POS”) that they delivered to the unit purchasers.”
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash. App. 227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 64.34.405(1). RCW 64.34.410. For example, a POS must contain the condominium’s name and address, the declarant’s name and address, the management company’s name and address, and the relationship between the declarant and the management company.”
Marina Condo. Homeowners Ass'n v. Stratford, 254 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “344; breach of duty to repair common elements; and misrepresentation and breach of RCW 64.34.405 and 64.34.410. [2] Stratford also argues that in addition to abusing its discretion, the trial court erred as a matter of law, because it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.405(1) — 5 cases
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Investments, Inc., 61 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 64.34.405, RCW 64.34.410. [5] Following the sale of all of the condominium units in 1997 and 1998, the OPT entities were dissolved.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Inv., 30 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[ [5] ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners' Ass'n v. HAL Real Est. Investments, Inc., 108 Wash. App. 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[ 5 ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., Inc., 103 P.3d 1256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[26] RCW 64.34.405(1). [27] RCW 64.34.410. For example, a POS must contain the condominium's name and address, the declarant's name and address, the management company's name and address, and the relationship between the declarant and the management company.”
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash. App. 227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 64.34.405(1). RCW 64.34.410. For example, a POS must contain the condominium’s name and address, the declarant’s name and address, the management company’s name and address, and the relationship between the declarant and the management company.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.405(2) — 3 cases
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Investments, Inc., 61 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 64.34.405, RCW 64.34.410. [5] Following the sale of all of the condominium units in 1997 and 1998, the OPT entities were dissolved.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Inv., 30 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[ [5] ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners' Ass'n v. HAL Real Est. Investments, Inc., 108 Wash. App. 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[ 5 ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.405(3) — 5 cases
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Investments, Inc., 61 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 64.34.405, RCW 64.34.410. [5] Following the sale of all of the condominium units in 1997 and 1998, the OPT entities were dissolved.”
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., Inc., 103 P.3d 1256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[26] RCW 64.34.405(1). [27] RCW 64.34.410. For example, a POS must contain the condominium's name and address, the declarant's name and address, the management company's name and address, and the relationship between the declarant and the management company.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Inv., 30 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[ [5] ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
One Pac. Towers Homeowners' Ass'n v. HAL Real Est. Investments, Inc., 108 Wash. App. 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[ 5 ] Subsection (2) of RCW 64.34.405 is not at issue in this appeal.”
Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co., 125 Wash. App. 227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 64.34.405(1). RCW 64.34.410. For example, a POS must contain the condominium’s name and address, the declarant’s name and address, the management company’s name and address, and the relationship between the declarant and the management company.”
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.