Most states leave selective enforcement to case law, an equitable doctrine you argue by analogy. Washington put it in the statute. RCW 64.90.405 gives the board real discretion not to pursue every violation, it can skip enforcement if the legal position is weak, the rule is likely inconsistent with law, the violation isn't material, or enforcement isn't in the association's best interest, but then closes the loop: the board's decision not to pursue enforcement under one set of circumstances doesn't prevent it from taking enforcement action under another, 'but the board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.' That's not a judge's gloss on the statute. It's the legislature's own words, and it's the sentence to put in front of the board if you're fined for something a neighbor got a pass on.
The argument still rises or falls on documentation, and Washington happens to force the documentation to exist. RCW 64.90.495 requires the association to retain, for seven years, the materials relied upon by the board or any committee concerning a decision to enforce the governing documents, for every enforcement decision, not just yours. Combined with the records-access right in that same statute, you can request the association's enforcement history on a specific rule and show a pattern: cited here, ignored there, with no explanation for the difference.
Legacy HOAs get the same paper trail, a thinner statute
If your community formed before July 1, 2018 and is still governed by the legacy Homeowners' Associations Act, RCW 64.38.020 gives the board the same basic fine power, notice, a hearing, and a previously furnished schedule, but it doesn't repeat WUCIOA's explicit arbitrary-or-capricious sentence. That doesn't leave you without an argument: the notice-and-hearing structure is identical, and inconsistent enforcement of the same rule is exactly the kind of fact pattern a hearing officer or court weighs regardless of which act technically controls. Document it the same way either way.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
RCW 64.90.405
Gives the board discretion whether to enforce a violation, but expressly bars it from being arbitrary or capricious once it does act.
RCW 64.90.495
Requires seven years' retention of the materials behind every enforcement decision, and gives owners the right to request that history to prove a pattern.
RCW 64.38.020
The legacy HOA's parallel fine power, tying enforcement to notice, a hearing, and a previously furnished schedule, without WUCIOA's explicit arbitrary-or-capricious language.
Step by step
How to document and assert selective enforcement in Washington
Build the record that supports an arbitrary-or-capricious challenge to a Washington HOA's enforcement decision.
- 01
Identify the exact rule
Pin down the specific covenant or rule the association says you violated, and confirm the fine followed the notice-and-hearing process in RCW 64.90.405 or RCW 64.38.020.
- 02
Photograph comparable violations
Document other properties with the same violation that were never cited. Date-stamp the photos and note addresses or lot numbers, not neighbors' names.
- 03
Request the enforcement decision file
Cite RCW 64.90.495 and ask for the materials the board relied on to enforce this rule against you, and against any comparable properties you can identify.
- 04
Raise RCW 64.90.405 at the hearing
Quote the statute's own language back to the board: enforcement 'may not be arbitrary or capricious.' Ask that your comparables go in the minutes.
- 05
Preserve everything for escalation
If your declaration requires mediation or arbitration before a lawsuit, follow that path first; either way, keep every dated document if the dispute continues.
Straight answers
Common questions
Is selective enforcement illegal in Washington?
It's more direct than 'illegal': RCW 64.90.405 expressly bars the board from being arbitrary or capricious once it decides to enforce a rule, which is the statutory hook for a selective-enforcement argument.
What if my community is a legacy HOA formed before 2018?
RCW 64.38.020 gives the same basic notice-and-hearing fine power but doesn't repeat WUCIOA's explicit arbitrary-or-capricious sentence. Document the pattern the same way regardless; the fairness argument doesn't disappear because the newer statute's specific language isn't there.
What evidence do I actually need?
Dated photos of comparable, uncited violations, the association's own enforcement decision file for the rule at issue, which RCW 64.90.495 requires it to keep for seven years, and a clear timeline of your own notice and hearing.
Does the board have to enforce every violation equally?
No. RCW 64.90.405 lets the board skip enforcement for good reasons. But it can't skip enforcement against your neighbor and then go after you for the identical thing without risking an arbitrary-or-capricious challenge.