Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096 (2026)
Theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person who, with intent to deprive the owner or owner's agent, wrongfully obtains, or exerts unauthorized control over, or by color or aid of deception gains control of personal property that is rented, leased, or loaned by written agreement to the person, is guilty of theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property.
(2) The finder of fact may presume intent to deprive if the finder of fact finds either of the following:
(a) That the person who rented or leased the property failed to return or make arrangements acceptable to the owner of the property or the owner's agent to return the property to the owner or the owner's agent within seventy-two hours after receipt of proper notice following the due date of the rental, lease, lease-purchase, or loan agreement; or
(b) That the renter, lessee, or borrower presented identification to the owner or the owner's agent that was materially false, fictitious, or not current with respect to name, address, place of employment, or other appropriate items.
(3) As used in subsection (2) of this section, "proper notice" consists of a written demand by the owner or the owner's agent made after the due date of the rental, lease, lease-purchase, or loan period, mailed by certified or registered mail to the renter, lessee, or borrower at: (a) The address the renter, lessee, or borrower gave when the contract was made; or (b) the renter, lessee, or borrower's last known address if later furnished in writing by the renter, lessee, borrower, or the agent of the renter, lessee, or borrower.
(4) The replacement value of the property obtained must be utilized in determining the amount involved in the theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property.
(5)(a) Theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property is a class B felony if the rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property is valued at five thousand dollars or more.
(b) Theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property is a class C felony if the rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property is valued at seven hundred fifty dollars or more but less than five thousand dollars.
(c) Theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property is a gross misdemeanor if the rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property is valued at less than seven hundred fifty dollars.
(6) The crime of theft of rental, leased, lease-purchased, or loaned property may be deemed to have been committed either at the physical location where the written agreement for the rental, lease, lease-purchase, or loan of the property was executed under subsection (1) of this section, or at the address where proper notice may be mailed to the renter, lessee, or borrower under subsection (3) of this section.
(7) This section applies to rental agreements that provide that the renter may return the property any time within the rental period and pay only for the time the renter actually retained the property, in addition to any minimum rental fee, to lease agreements, to lease-purchase agreements as defined under RCW 63.19.010, and to vehicles loaned to prospective purchasers borrowing a vehicle by written agreement from a motor vehicle dealer licensed under chapter 46.70 RCW. This section does not apply to rental or leasing of real property under the residential landlord-tenant act, chapter 59.18 RCW.
Notes:
Applicability—2009 c 431: See note following RCW 4.24.230.
Findings—Intent—Short title—2007 c 199: See notes following RCW 9A.56.065.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Property crime database, liability: RCW 4.24.340.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2006–2017 · leading case: State v. Fleming, 155 Wash. App. 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Fleming, 155 Wash. App. 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Al *494 though sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, the State did not present any evidence that Fleming received the written notice former RCW 9A.56.096 requires from which the jury could presume his intent to deprive, and the trial court erred in giving the…”
State v. Chase, 134 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property’s replacement value.”
State v. Fleming, 228 P.3d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 1 A jury entered a verdict finding Harry Fleming III guilty of theft of rental, leased, or lease-purchased property, contrary to former RCW 9A.56.096 (2003). Fleming appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay evidence under the…”
State v. Chase, 142 P.3d 630 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property's replacement value.”
State of Washington v. Jeffrey Leonard Huesties (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “arrangements to return the rental property within 72 hours of receipt of "proper notice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096(1) — 2 cases
State v. Chase, 142 P.3d 630 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property's replacement value.”
State of Washington v. Jeffrey Leonard Huesties (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “arrangements to return the rental property within 72 hours of receipt of "proper notice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096(2) — 2 cases
State v. Fleming, 155 Wash. App. 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Al *494 though sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, the State did not present any evidence that Fleming received the written notice former RCW 9A.56.096 requires from which the jury could presume his intent to deprive, and the trial court erred in giving the…”
State v. Fleming, 228 P.3d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 1 A jury entered a verdict finding Harry Fleming III guilty of theft of rental, leased, or lease-purchased property, contrary to former RCW 9A.56.096 (2003). Fleming appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay evidence under the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Fleming, 155 Wash. App. 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Al *494 though sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, the State did not present any evidence that Fleming received the written notice former RCW 9A.56.096 requires from which the jury could presume his intent to deprive, and the trial court erred in giving the…”
State v. Fleming, 228 P.3d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 1 A jury entered a verdict finding Harry Fleming III guilty of theft of rental, leased, or lease-purchased property, contrary to former RCW 9A.56.096 (2003). Fleming appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay evidence under the…”
State of Washington v. Jeffrey Leonard Huesties (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “arrangements to return the rental property within 72 hours of receipt of "proper notice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096(3) — 3 cases
State v. Fleming, 155 Wash. App. 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Al *494 though sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, the State did not present any evidence that Fleming received the written notice former RCW 9A.56.096 requires from which the jury could presume his intent to deprive, and the trial court erred in giving the…”
State v. Fleming, 228 P.3d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 1 A jury entered a verdict finding Harry Fleming III guilty of theft of rental, leased, or lease-purchased property, contrary to former RCW 9A.56.096 (2003). Fleming appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay evidence under the…”
State of Washington v. Jeffrey Leonard Huesties (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “arrangements to return the rental property within 72 hours of receipt of "proper notice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096(4) — 2 cases
State v. Chase, 134 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property’s replacement value.”
State v. Chase, 142 P.3d 630 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property's replacement value.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.096(5)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Chase, 134 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property’s replacement value.”
State v. Chase, 142 P.3d 630 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “095 in 1997 and replaced it with RCW 9A.56.096, it specifically defined the value of leased stolen property as that property's replacement value.”
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.