House Bill 2102 makes wide-ranging changes to Washington law governing legal financial obligations (LFOs). It adds a new section to chapter 10.01 RCW that treats certain previously imposed judgments for costs, fees, and accrued interest on restitution and other LFOs as unenforceable after the section’s effective date, prohibits courts from accepting payments on those eliminated debts, and directs courts on motions by offenders to waive uncollectible portions. The bill authorizes presiding judges to establish an administrative waiver process for outstanding nonrestitution debt, allows clerks or court administrators to seek judicial orders to waive costs and accrued interest, and clarifies that such motions by clerks are not the practice of law. The bill text in the provided material does not state the effective date for that new section. The bill amends multiple court finance and collection statutes to change remittance, interest, and enforcement rules. Municipal and district treasurers must remit monthly 32 percent of specified noninterest receipts to the state general fund, with specified exclusions; interest on penalties, fines, fees, and costs may accrue only while a case is in collection status and, upon assignment to a collection agency, may accrue at 12% per annum, but criminally imposed penalties/costs have not accrued interest since June 7, 2018. The bill requires courts to itemize judgments and sentences by restitution, costs, fines, and other assessments, to set monthly payments, and to apply payments in a fixed priority (victims not fully compensated, insurers/other compensators, victims’ assessments, then costs/fines). It restates that court-ordered restitution may be enforced as a civil judgment, sets standard enforcement periods and a 90-day process for 10-year extensions (with specified procedures and fee rules), and retains overall limits on enforceability in many cases. The bill makes procedural and definitional changes affecting waivers, indigency, supervision, and sanctions. It adds a new "indigent" definition in chapter 10.01 RCW (five criteria referenced) and replaces earlier statutory indigency references with that section; it generally bars courts from ordering "costs" except where statute authorizes them and prohibits charging fees for deferred-prosecution supervision or probation-department services. The department referenced in the bill and county clerks have delineated collection roles during and after supervision, clerks may access employment records for collection, and collection costs may be charged to offenders. Sanctions for nonpayment are limited: the court may not punish nonpayment absent a finding of willfulness after a hearing (willful defined as current ability to pay but refusal), indigency is presumed to show inability to pay, and homeless or mentally ill defendants are treated as not willful. The bill creates a judicial stabilization trust account for certain surcharges and lists several RCW sections to be repealed. Important missing or incomplete information in the extracted material includes the actual text of section 14 (the new indigency definition), the effective date(s) for the new/changed provisions, and several truncated or incomplete statutory subsections referenced throughout the bill.

If enacted, many past charges that built up on criminal legal financial obligations — especially accrued interest and certain costs and fees — would be wiped out and courts would be barred from accepting payments on those eliminated amounts, while courts would be required or allowed to waive other uncollectible LFOs (including interest) when an offender lacks the defined "current ability to pay." That will most directly benefit people who owe court fees, fines, or interest by reducing or eliminating what they must pay and by making indigency (now defined more broadly) a stronger basis to avoid payment or conversion of debts to jail; at the same time insurers, some state agencies, and other entities that currently collect through LFOs may see lower recoveries for interest and fees and may need to rely on civil enforcement for restitution principal. Local courts, clerks, and treasurers will face new administrative work and different revenue flows: clerks and county/city treasurers must process expanded waiver procedures, continue to prioritize and distribute payments (victim restitution first), and remit specified shares monthly to the state (commonly 32% of certain noninterest receipts), which could reduce local funds that previously came from fees and interest. Collection agencies’ ability to add interest is limited, offenders still pay collection costs when collection is pursued, and counties that want to use deposited penalty money for victim/witness programs must obtain state approval or else remit funds to the state; however key implementation details — including the exact effective date for wiping out past debts and the full text of the new indigency standard in section 14 — are not included in the provided material, leaving timing and some practical procedures uncertain.