HB 2102
In CommitteeHouse
Legal financial obligations
Concerning legal financial obligations.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill overhauls Washington’s legal financial obligations (LFOs) system by waiving uncollectible nonrestitution debts, limiting interest accrual, tightening enforcement rules, and expanding protections for people who are indigent, homeless, or mentally ill. It also clarifies how restitution and other LFOs are prioritized and collected, and revises how courts assess ability to pay.
- Debts for nonrestitution legal financial obligations (e.g., fines, fees, costs) that were imposed before the bill’s effective date are null and void if the offender lacks the current ability to pay; courts must waive uncollectible portions upon motion or through an administrative process.
- Courts must determine an offender’s ability to pay before imposing or enforcing LFOs, and may waive or modify obligations—including accrued interest—if the offender is indigent, homeless, or mentally ill.
- Interest no longer accrues on criminal LFOs (including restitution, fines, fees, and costs) as of June 7, 2018, and the bill codifies this prohibition across multiple statutes.
- Enforcement periods for nonrestitution LFOs are limited to 10 years after release from confinement or judgment entry, and extensions require a finding that the offender has the current ability to pay.
- Restitution to victims remains enforceable for longer periods (up to 25 years in some cases), and priority for payment is given to restitution over other LFOs.
- Indigency is redefined to include people with household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, or those with high basic living costs relative to income, making them ineligible for LFOs unless specifically authorized by statute.
Who is affected
- People with criminal legal financial obligations — People who have outstanding legal financial obligations (LFOs) from criminal cases, including restitution, fines, fees, and costs, may see those debts waived or modified if they lack the current ability to pay.
- Courts and court clerks — Courts and clerks gain new authority and procedures to review and waive uncollectible LFOs, especially for nonrestitution obligations, and must follow updated rules for interest accrual and collection.
- Crime victims — Victims of crime may continue to receive restitution, but the process for collecting nonrestitution LFOs (like fines and fees) is now more limited, especially for people who are indigent or unable to pay.
- Local governments — Local governments (cities, counties) may receive less revenue from LFO collections due to changes in remittance rules, interest accrual limits, and debt waivers.
- Indigent, homeless, or mentally ill individuals — People who are indigent, homeless, or have mental health conditions are protected from penalties for nonpayment of LFOs and may have debts waived.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Expanding the definition of indigency to include people with household income ≤200% of the federal poverty level, as well as those who are homeless or mentally ill, and requiring courts to waive uncollectible LFOs for such individuals, prevents incarceration for inability to pay and reduces the risk of debt traps. This directly protects vulnerable populations from punitive enforcement of debts they cannot reasonably repay.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 14; RCW 10.01.160(3) (as amended)Prohibiting enforcement of nonrestitution LFOs against people who are indigent—including those who are homeless—prevents further marginalization and housing instability. By waiving debts and blocking enforcement, the bill reduces barriers to securing housing, employment, and stability for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 11(13); RCW 9.94A.760(12)Explicitly stating that failure to pay LFOs is not willful noncompliance for people who are homeless or mentally ill prevents incarceration for nonpayment and redirects enforcement toward treatment and support rather than punishment. This aligns enforcement with public health approaches and reduces unnecessary incarceration.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 11(13); RCW 9.94A.760(12)Shielding people who are mentally ill from penalties for nonpayment of LFOs and requiring courts to consider mental health status in ability-to-pay determinations promotes access to treatment and reduces criminalization of mental illness. This supports health outcomes and reduces strain on emergency and correctional mental health systems.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 11(13); RCW 9.94A.760(12)By waiving uncollectible LFOs and preventing enforcement against indigent individuals—including those with income ≤200% FPL—the bill reduces barriers to employment and economic mobility. People released from incarceration with discharged debts are better positioned to secure stable employment and avoid recidivism.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 11(13); RCW 9.94A.760(12)
Potential Concerns (5)
Waiving uncollectible nonrestitution LFOs (fines, fees, costs) for people who lack current ability to pay—especially those with income ≤200% FPL, homeless, or mentally ill—reduces state and local government revenue from LFO collections. This revenue loss may lead to budget pressures that result in reduced funding for public services or increased fees elsewhere. The fiscal impact section confirms this will reduce revenue to counties and the state.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2); Sec. 14; RCW 10.01.160(3) (as amended)Limiting enforcement periods for nonrestitution LFOs to 10 years and requiring courts to find current ability to pay before extending enforcement significantly reduces long-term collection potential for local governments. This directly reduces municipal and county revenue from LFO surcharges and remittances, especially for smaller jurisdictions that rely on these funds for court operations.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 10(2)(d); RCW 9.94A.760(2)(d)Waiving previously imposed crime victim penalty assessments for people who are indigent (including those with income ≤200% FPL, homeless, or mentally ill) reduces funds available for victim services programs. While victims’ restitution remains prioritized, the reduction in penalty assessments may strain local victim support programs that depend on these surcharges for funding.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 27; RCW 7.68.035(4), (5)Prohibiting probation departments from levying fees or assessments for evaluation or supervision services eliminates a revenue stream for private probation providers and some county-run probation programs. While this benefits offenders, it may reduce funding for probation services unless reallocated from other sources, potentially affecting service quality or availability in some jurisdictions.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 20; RCW 10.64.120(2)Reducing revenue from LFO collections and penalty assessments may limit local governments’ ability to fund comprehensive crime victim and witness support programs, especially in counties that have not yet established approved programs. This could indirectly affect victim participation in the justice process and long-term public safety outcomes.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 27; RCW 7.68.035(6)
Who Is Most Affected
People with outstanding nonrestitution LFOs (fines, fees, costs) who are indigent, homeless, or mentally ill will benefit significantly: debts will be waived, enforcement will be limited, and incarceration for nonpayment will be prohibited. This reduces financial stress, housing instability, and criminalization of poverty.
Local governments (cities, counties) will experience reduced revenue from LFO collections, surcharges, and extensions. While the bill preserves restitution priority and some surcharges, overall revenue loss may strain court budgets and victim services funding, especially in smaller jurisdictions.
Crime victims will continue to receive restitution, which remains prioritized and enforceable for up to 25 years in certain cases. However, reduced penalty assessments and limited enforcement of nonrestitution LFOs may indirectly affect victim services funding, depending on local program structures.
Courts and clerks gain new authority to review and waive uncollectible LFOs, but also face increased administrative burdens to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and manage expanded waiver processes. The bill codifies procedures but does not provide new funding to support implementation.
Indigent, homeless, and mentally ill individuals benefit directly from expanded protections: debts will be waived, enforcement will be limited, and incarceration for nonpayment will be prohibited. This reduces barriers to housing, employment, and health services.