Wash. Rev. Code » Title 72 · Chapter 72.11
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 72.11.030 (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 otherwise provided herein, all court-ordered legal financial obligations shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals from inmate's accounts.
(2) For those inmates who are on work release pursuant to chapter 72.65 RCW, before any legal financial obligations are withdrawn from the inmate's account, the inmate is entitled to payroll deductions that are required by law, or such payroll deductions as may reasonably be required by the nature of the employment unless any such amount which his or her work release plan specifies should be retained to help meet the inmate's needs, including costs necessary for his or her participation in the work release plan such as travel, meals, clothing, tools, and other incidentals.
(3) Before the payment of any court-ordered legal financial obligation is required, the department is entitled to reimbursement for any expenses advanced for vocational training pursuant to RCW 72.65.020(2), for expenses incident to a work release plan pursuant to RCW 72.65.090, payments for board and room charges for the work release participant, and payments that are necessary for the support of the work release participant's dependents, if any.
[ 1989 c 252 s 24.]

Notes:

Purpose—Prospective application—Effective dates—Severability—1989 c 252: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Anderson v. State, Dept. of Corr., 154 P.3d 220 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. State, Dept. of Corr., 154 P.3d 220 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 6× “020 also mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, while RCW 72.11.030 provides that court-ordered LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals.”
Anderson v. Dep't of Corr., 159 Wash. 2d 849 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 6× “020 also mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, while RCW 72.11.030 provides that court-ordered LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals.”
In Re Pierce, 268 P.3d 907 (Wash. 2011). “[5] RCW 72.11.030(1) provides that "all court-ordered legal financial obligations shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals from inmate's accounts.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Pierce, 173 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 72.11.030(1) provides that “all court-ordered legal financial obligations shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals from inmate’s accounts.”
Eddie Velez v. Dep't of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “020 mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, and that RCW 72.11.030 states that LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily-imposed mandatory withdrawals, the Supreme Court held that while RCW 72.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.11.030(1) — 4 cases
Anderson v. State, Dept. of Corr., 154 P.3d 220 (Wash. 2007). “020 also mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, while RCW 72.11.030 provides that court-ordered LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals.”
Anderson v. Dep't of Corr., 159 Wash. 2d 849 (Wash. 2007). “020 also mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, while RCW 72.11.030 provides that court-ordered LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals.”
In Re Pierce, 268 P.3d 907 (Wash. 2011). “[5] RCW 72.11.030(1) provides that "all court-ordered legal financial obligations shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals from inmate's accounts.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Pierce, 173 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 72.11.030(1) provides that “all court-ordered legal financial obligations shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals from inmate’s accounts.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.11.030(2) — 2 cases
Anderson v. State, Dept. of Corr., 154 P.3d 220 (Wash. 2007). “020 also mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, while RCW 72.11.030 provides that court-ordered LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals.”
Anderson v. Dep't of Corr., 159 Wash. 2d 849 (Wash. 2007). “020 also mandates that court-ordered LFOs shall be paid, while RCW 72.11.030 provides that court-ordered LFOs shall take priority over any other statutorily imposed mandatory withdrawals.”
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.