State law lookup › HOA fines › Washington

HOA fines in Washington: what the law says

My HOA hit me with a fine or fee

State law

What the statute says

Governing statute
THREE overlapping acts, and which one applies turns on the date the community was created. (1) Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA), RCW ch.
Read the full rule

64.90 -- governs all common interest communities (condominium, plat community, cooperative, miscellaneous community) created on or after July 1, 2018, plus older communities that elect in. Fine power: RCW 64.90.405(2)(l). CRITICAL LIMIT: RCW 64.90.365(1) (formerly RCW 64.90.080) lists the only WUCIOA sections that reach a community created BEFORE July 1, 2018 -- RCW 64.90.370, 64.90.405(1)(b) and (c), 64.90.445, 64.90.480(10), 64.90.502 (Emergency), 64.90.513 (Electric vehicle charging stations), 64.90.525, 64.90.545 (Reserve study), 64.90.580, and 64.90.010. The fine/notice/hearing power in 64.90.405(2)(l), the records section 64.90.495, and the rules-notice section 64.90.505 are NOT on that list. (2) Homeowners' Associations act, RCW ch. 64.38 -- non-condominium HOAs created before July 1, 2018. Fine power: RCW 64.38.020(11). This entire chapter EXPIRES January 1, 2028. (3) Washington Condominium Act, RCW ch. 64.34 -- condominiums created before July 1, 2018. Fine power: RCW 64.34.304(1)(k). Effective until January 1, 2028.

Notice they must give you
Washington sets NO statutory number of days of advance notice and NO required delivery method. What the statutes require instead is two things, and the second is the sharpest procedural defense available to a Washington owner: (a) notice and an opportunity to be heard, and (b) that the fine conform to a fine schedule that was adopted by the board BEFOREHAND and FURNISHED TO THE OWNERS.
Read the full rule

WUCIOA, RCW 64.90.405(2)(l): the association may "Enforce the governing documents and, after notice and opportunity to be heard, impose and collect reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents in accordance with a previously established schedule of fines adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners pursuant to the requirements for notice in RCW 64.90.505". Pre-July-2018 non-condo HOAs, RCW 64.38.020(11): the association may impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments and, "after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board", levy reasonable fines per an established schedule furnished to owners for bylaw violations. Pre-July-2018 condominiums, RCW 64.34.304(1)(k): "Impose and collect charges for late payment of assessments pursuant to RCW 64.34.364(13) and, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by such representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with such procedures as provided in the declaration or bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule thereof adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violations of the declaration, bylaws, and rules and regulations of the association". So: a fine for conduct not on a pre-existing, previously distributed fine schedule, or a fine amount exceeding that schedule, is outside the statutory grant of power.

Your right to a hearing
Yes, there is a statutory right to "an opportunity to be heard" in all three acts, but Washington's version is the thinnest of the three states because the statute delegates the PROCEDURE to the association's own governing documents.
Read the full rule

Under RCW 64.38.020(11) the owner is heard "by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors." Under RCW 64.34.304(1)(k) it is "in accordance with such procedures as provided in the declaration or bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors." Under WUCIOA RCW 64.90.405(2)(l) the statute says only "after notice and opportunity to be heard" and supplies no procedural detail at all. The owner does not apply or petition for the hearing -- the opportunity must precede the fine, because the power to fine is granted only "after notice and opportunity to be heard." What Washington statutes do NOT provide: no requirement that the hearing be before a panel excluding board members (contrast N.C.G.S. 47F-3-107.1), no stated right to be represented by counsel (contrast Va. Code 55.1-1819(C)), no minimum advance-notice period (contrast Virginia's 14 days), and no statutory internal appeal from the decision.

Cap on the fine
NO statutory dollar cap in any of the three Washington acts. This is the biggest difference from North Carolina ($100) and Virginia ($50 / $10 per day / 90 days).
Read the full rule

The only statutory limits on amount are qualitative: the fines must be "reasonable" (RCW 64.90.405(2)(l), RCW 64.38.020(11), RCW 64.34.304(1)(k)) and must conform to the previously established, previously furnished schedule of fines. RCW 64.90.505(5) separately provides that "Every rule must be reasonable." There is also no statutory cap on the number of days a continuing violation may be fined. A Washington owner therefore attacks amount through reasonableness and through the fine schedule, not through a statutory ceiling.

Right to inspect records
Two regimes, and only the WUCIOA one has hard deadlines. (1) WUCIOA, RCW 64.90.495 (Association records): records must be made available "upon 10 days' notice unless the size of the request or need to redact information reasonably requires a longer time, but in no event later than 21 days without a court order allowing…
Read the full rule

a longer time." (2) Pre-July-2018 non-condo HOAs, RCW 64.38.045: no fixed number of days -- records "must be made available for examination and copying by all owners, holders of mortgages on the lots, and their respective authorized agents" "[d]uring reasonable business hours or at a mutually convenient time and location" and "[a]t the offices of the association or its managing agent." MOST USEFUL POINT FOR FINE DISPUTES: both regimes require the association to retain, for seven years, the materials it relied on when it decided to enforce -- RCW 64.38.045(4)(j) requires retention of "Materials relied upon by the board or any committee concerning a decision to enforce the governing documents for a period of seven years after the decision is made," and (4)(m) requires "Copies of all notices provided to owners or the association in accordance with this chapter or the governing documents." RCW 64.90.495 contains the equivalent seven-year enforcement-decision retention requirement. Both regimes require redaction of specified categories (personnel and medical records, commercial negotiations in progress, existing or potential litigation/mediation/arbitration/administrative proceedings, attorney-client privileged material and attorney work product, executive session records, individual lot files other than the requesting owner's, unlisted telephone numbers or electronic addresses, security access information). Under RCW 64.38.045(8)(a) the association may charge a reasonable fee for producing copies and supervising inspection; under (10) it "is not obligated to compile or synthesize information"; under (11) information "may not be used for commercial purposes"; under (13) the section applies to records in the association's possession on July 23, 2023 and to records created or maintained after that date, with no liability for records disposed of before then. RCW 64.38.045 expires January 1, 2028.

Required dispute process
No mandatory statutory pre-suit mediation, arbitration, or administrative filing. ADR is purely consensual: RCW 64.90.685(2) provides that "Parties to a dispute arising under this chapter or the governing documents may agree at any time to resolve the dispute by any form of binding or nonbinding alternative dispute…
Read the full rule

resolution." Direct court access is expressly granted: RCW 64.90.685(1) provides that "A declarant, association, unit owner, or any other person subject to this chapter may bring an action to enforce a right granted or obligation imposed under this chapter or the governing documents." For pre-July-2018 non-condo HOAs, RCW 64.38.050 provides that "Any violation of the provisions of this chapter entitles an aggrieved party to any remedy provided by law or in equity." The only real prerequisite specific to fines is the association-side one: notice and opportunity to be heard before the fine is imposed.

Attorney's fees
Discretionary and two-way in owner-versus-association disputes; one-way and mandatory-ish for the association in collections.
Read the full rule

WUCIOA RCW 64.90.685(1) (titled "Action to enforce right granted, obligation imposed -- Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs -- Alternative dispute resolution allowed"): "The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs." Pre-July-2018 non-condo HOAs, RCW 64.38.050: "The court, in an appropriate case, may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party." Note "may," not "shall" -- weaker than Virginia's mandatory prevailing-party award. In collections, the association has a broad one-way entitlement under RCW 64.90.485(19): "The association is entitled to recover any costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the collection of delinquent assessments, whether or not such collection activities result in a suit being commenced or prosecuted to judgment." In a lien foreclosure, the fees that share the lien's priority under RCW 64.90.485(3)(a)(ii) are capped at "$2,000 or an amount equal to the amounts described in (a)(i) of this subsection, whichever is less." One genuinely mandatory owner-side fee provision exists but only for a narrow subject: RCW 64.90.513(10)(b) (electric vehicle charging stations) -- "the court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to any prevailing unit owner" -- and 64.90.513(10)(a) adds that an association that willfully violates that section "is liable to the unit owner for actual damages, and shall pay a civil penalty to the unit owner in an amount not to exceed $1,000."

Time limit to sue
6 years
Who handles complaints
无州级主管机构, 争议走法院 -- No state-level HOA regulator. Chapter 64.90 RCW contains no section creating or referencing a state agency, department, commission, ombudsman, or administrative complaint process for homeowners associations; the chapter regulates the associations' own governance and disclosure duties rather than creating external oversight.
Read the full rule

Enforcement is by private civil action under RCW 64.90.685 (or RCW 64.38.050 for pre-July-2018 non-condo HOAs), plus the association-level notice-and-hearing step. Washington is the opposite of Virginia here -- there is no equivalent of Virginia's Common Interest Community Board or Ombudsman.

Read this before relying on the numbers above

The six years is the association's window, not yours. Under RCW 64.90.485(9), a lien for unpaid assessments and the personal liability to pay them are both extinguished unless proceedings to enforce the lien or collect the debt begin within six years after the full amount became due. Nothing in that provision sets a deadline for an owner who wants to challenge a fine.

Read it yourself

Official sources. If a number below matters to your case, open the statute and read it — laws get amended, and cities often stack stricter local rules on top.

Last checked: 2026-08-17

Send this as a certified letter

Jab drafts the letter, a licensed attorney reviews it, and we mail it USPS Certified Mail with a signed return receipt. $29 flat. You can also write it yourself — this page has what you need.

Start my letter →
Jab Today is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. This page describes how the statutes read, which is a different thing from what will happen in your case. Laws are amended and local ordinances often add stricter rules. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.