This bill adds a new section to chapter 10.01 RCW and makes many amendments across statutes governing legal financial obligations (LFOs), restitution, court fee remittances, collections, and supervision. The new 10.01 RCW provision states that previously imposed judgments for costs, fees, and interest that are eliminated or repealed by this act are not enforceable after the effective date; courts must not accept payments on those debts and those debts are treated as null, void, and satisfied. The bill also authorizes individual relief: on motion of an offender a court must waive uncollectible portions of LFOs, and presiding superior court judges may authorize administrative processes to waive outstanding non‑restitution debt; superior court clerks may seek judicial orders to waive costs, fees (other than restitution), and accrued interest using a process analogous to RCW 6.17.020, and a clerk’s motion under that process is not the practice of law. The act modifies remittance, interest, enforcement, and collection procedures. It requires municipal, district, and county treasurers and clerks to remit specified monies at least monthly and to forward 32 percent of certain noninterest money to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund (subject to defined exclusions for “certain costs”); it limits interest on penalties, fines, fees, and costs to 12 percent per year only while a case is in collection status and confirms that, as of June 7, 2018, items imposed in criminal proceedings do not accrue interest. The bill clarifies restitution enforcement windows: for offenses committed prior to July 1, 2000 restitution is enforceable for the 10‑year period after release from total confinement or within 10 years of entry of sentence (whichever is longer) and a superior court may extend that period; for offenses on or after July 1, 2000 the court retains jurisdiction for restitution until the obligation is satisfied. Courts may relieve or decline to require full or partial restitution owed to insurers or state agencies (except restitution owed to the Department of Labor and Industries under chapter 7.68 RCW) if the court finds the offender lacks current or likely future ability to pay. The bill also prescribes priority rules for distributing payments, allows conversion of nonrestitution LFOs to community restitution hours at a rate no less than the state minimum wage, adds procedures for department and clerk roles in setting and modifying monthly payment amounts, creates a judicial stabilization trust account for certain surcharge receipts, and repeals several listed RCW sections. For certain offenses resulting in a victim’s pregnancy, the bill requires restitution to cover medical expenses and child support where ordered, directs payments for a victim’s child to the state child support registry while excluding identifying information from the restitution order, and extends jurisdiction for those obligations up to a specified maximum period. The bill makes numerous procedural changes to probation, deferred prosecution, stipulated administrative sanctions, enforcement hearings, remission petitions for fines, and collection workflows (including requirements for individualized billing and daily remittance to clerks). It replaces prior cross‑references to indigency with a new indigency definition located in section 13 of this act and ties many ability‑to‑pay rules to that definition. Important details are not included in the provided excerpts: the exact costs, fees, and interest provisions that are “eliminated or repealed by this act” are not specified here, the effective date for the new unenforceability rule is not given in these extracts, the full text of the new indigency definition in section 13 is not provided, and several amended sections are cut off or incomplete in the materials supplied.

If enacted, many court-imposed debts for costs, fees, and interest that the bill eliminates would become unenforceable and courts would be barred from taking payments on those specific items; at the same time judges and court clerks would have clearer authority to administratively forgive or waive outstanding nonrestitution debts for people the court finds unable to pay. Restitution rules are tightened so victim restitution remains enforceable for long, defined periods (with courts able to extend enforcement when appropriate), but judges may relieve restitution owed to insurers or state agencies when an offender lacks current or likely future ability to pay (except for L&I claims); interest on penalties and fees is limited and collection roles are clarified so the department handles collection during supervision while county clerks collect afterward, with new requirements for daily remittances, monthly billing, and wage assignment notices. The groups most affected are people with legal financial obligations (who are likely to owe less, face less interest, and gain more routes to relief if found indigent), victims and entities owed restitution (who may still have long enforcement windows but face greater risk that some nonrestitution charges will be voided or administratively waived), and local courts and treasuries (which must implement monthly 32% remittances of specified noninterest receipts to the state, split interest distributions, and new administrative billing/waiver processes, potentially reducing local retained revenue and increasing administrative workload). The bill leaves unclear exactly which specific fees and interest provisions are eliminated and the bill’s effective dates in these excerpts are not provided, so the precise timing and fiscal impact on local governments and victim programs cannot be determined from the provided text.