Wash. Rev. Code » Title 74 · Chapter 74.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 74.04.300 (2026)

Recovery of payments improperly received—Lien—Recipient reporting requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If a recipient receives public assistance and/or food stamps or food stamp benefits transferred electronically for which the recipient is not eligible, or receives public assistance and/or food stamps or food stamp benefits transferred electronically in an amount greater than that for which the recipient is eligible, the portion of the payment to which the recipient is not entitled shall be a debt due the state recoverable under RCW 43.20B.030 and 43.20B.620 through 43.20B.645. It shall be the duty of recipients of cash benefits to notify the department of changes to earned income as defined in RCW 74.04.005. It shall be the duty of recipients of cash benefits to notify the department of changes to liquid resources as defined in RCW 74.04.005 that would result in ineligibility for cash benefits. It shall be the duty of recipients of food benefits to report changes in income that result in ineligibility for food benefits. All recipients shall report changes required in this section by the tenth of the month following the month in which the change occurs. The department shall make a determination of eligibility within ten days from the date it receives the reported change from the recipient. The department shall adopt rules consistent with federal law and regulations for additional reporting requirements. The department shall advise applicants for assistance that failure to report as required, failure to reveal resources or income, and false statements will result in recovery by the state of any overpayment and may result in criminal prosecution.
[ 2025 c 58 s 2045; 2003 c 208 s 1; 1998 c 79 s 7; 1987 c 75 s 32; 1982 c 201 s 16; 1980 c 84 s 2; 1979 c 141 s 306; 1973 1st ex.s. c 49 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 173 s 18; 1959 c 26 s 74.04.300. Prior: 1957 c 63 s 3; 1953 c 174 s 35; 1939 c 216 s 27; RRS s 10007-127a.]

Notes:

Explanatory note—2025 c 58: See note following RCW 1.16.050.
Savings—1987 c 75: See RCW 43.20B.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1955–1994 · leading case: Beckett v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 550 P.2d 529 (Wash. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beckett v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 550 P.2d 529 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 24× “As discussed below, this requirement is not met in the present situation because the two proceedings in question require different burdens of proof.”
State v. Ermert, 621 P.2d 121 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 4× “The court noted that notification of possession of "income and resources" was "required by law" pursuant to RCW 74.04.300: It shall be the duty of recipients of public assistance to notify the department.”
State v. Arndt, 553 P.2d 1328 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “RCW 74.04.300. That statute creates a debt owing the State in the amount of 125 percent of the amount of assistance improperly received from a public assistance recipient who willfully fails to reveal "resources or income.”
Kramarevcky v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 863 P.2d 535 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 2022 (b)(1)(B), the statute governing the food stamps program, states "[s]tate agencies shall collect any claim against a household arising from the overissuance of coupons.”
State v. Adams, 732 P.2d 149 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “RCW 74.04.300. We held that this statute allowed DSHS to *618 recoup overpayments without first establishing the alleged debt in a civil action.”
Bazan v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 612 P.2d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 23× “300, which provides for the recovery of public assistance overpayments; the validity of WAC 388-44-020, which declares as fraud a public assistance recipient's failure to notify the Department of Social *19 and Health Services of any change in circumstances affecting…”
State v. Matthews, 624 P.2d 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “300, which reads in part as follows: It shall be the duty of recipients of public assistance to notify the department within twenty days of the receipt *206 or possession of all income or resources not previously declared to the department, and any failure to so report shall be…”
Barnes v. Thomas, 635 P.2d 135 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “We do not believe the definitional statute was intended to narrow the jurisdiction or authority granted to the agency by RCW 74.04.300. The establishment of the overpayment is clearly within the province of DSHS under the statute.”
State v. Jones, 591 P.2d 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 74.04.300, it is "prima facie evidence of fraud" for a welfare recipient to fail to notify the Department of Social and Health Services "within twenty days of the receipt or possession of all income or resources not previously declared to the department.”
State v. Jeske, 558 P.2d 162 (Wash. 1976). “These facts are required to be revealed under RCW 74.04.300. Rather, counsel declares that the words “as required by law,” had they been included, would have alerted him to the possibility that the particular items of income did not affect the petitioner’s eligibility under the…”
State v. Walters, 508 P.2d 1390 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “RCW 74.04.300 provides, in part: It shall be the duty of recipients of public assistance to notify the department within thirty days of the receipt or possession of all income or resources not previously declared to the department, and any failure to so report shall be prima…”
Bazan v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 612 P.2d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 22× “—This appeal involves the construction and constitutionality of RCW 74.04.300, which provides for the recovery of public assistance overpayments; the validity of WAC 388-44-020, which declares as fraud a public assistance recipient's failure to notify the Department of Social…”
Show all 22 citing 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.