Why Closing Cost results differ in Washington
4 min read
Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team
The top 5 reasons results differ
If you’re running DocketMath → Closing Cost for Washington (US-WA) and your results don’t match another run, the differences usually come down to how your inputs interact with Washington’s 5-year general statute of limitations (SOL) under RCW 9A.04.080.
Bottom line: DocketMath uses the general/default SOL period of 5 years in Washington because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. That means discrepancies are often driven by how you set up the run, not by a hidden Washington-specific SOL rule for a specific claim type.
Here are the top five reasons results differ:
Different “start date” for SOL math
- In practice, people use different dates: filing date vs. incident date vs. service date.
- Even a small shift can change whether an item falls inside the 5-year window governed by RCW 9A.04.080.
Different closing-cost components selected
- Closing cost totals change based on which cost categories are included in your run (for example: settlement-related fees, title-related charges, recording-related items—depending on what your inputs map to in the calculator).
- Two users can both “run closing cost,” but one includes an extra component the other omits.
**Different assumptions about timing (when costs are treated as incurred)
- One run may treat costs as incurred at signing; another may treat them as incurred at closing.
- That timing assumption affects whether costs land inside/outside the 5-year boundary applied using RCW 9A.04.080.
Inconsistent currency/rounding handling
- Small rounding differences (cents vs. whole dollars) can compound when multiple components are summed.
- Also, totals can diverge if one run uses amounts that are pre-tax while another uses amounts that include fees.
Jurisdiction flag or ruleset mismatch
- DocketMath is jurisdiction-aware. If someone accidentally runs with a jurisdiction code other than US-WA, you can get the wrong SOL period and downstream results.
- For Washington, the default governing period is the 5-year general SOL under RCW 9A.04.080.
Friendly reminder (not legal advice): Don’t compare outputs across runs until you’ve confirmed both runs use US-WA and the same SOL date basis that drives the RCW 9A.04.080 (5-year general SOL) calculation.
How to isolate the variable
To pinpoint why two Closing Cost outputs differ, use a short “variable isolation” workflow in DocketMath.
Recommended checklist (use it like a test plan):
- Freeze the jurisdiction and tool settings so both runs use the same rule set.
- Compare one input at a time (dates, rates, amounts) and re-run after each change.
- Review the breakdown to see which segment or assumption drives the difference.
Do a side-by-side diff
Create a simple two-column note and compare these exact fields between the “good” run and the “different” run:
| Field to compare | Run A | Run B | What changes in output |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOL start date | ___ | ___ | Inclusion/exclusion vs. the 5-year window under RCW 9A.04.080 |
| SOL end/assessed date | ___ | ___ | Shifts whether items fall inside/outside |
| Included cost categories | ___ | ___ | Directly changes totals |
| Timing for cost occurrence | ___ | ___ | Changes inclusion boundary |
| Totals rounding | cents/dollars | cents/dollars | Can alter summed totals |
If totals still differ after matching every item above, rerun once with only one component enabled at a time—this quickly shows which input drives the discrepancy.
For a fast start, open the tool here: **DocketMath Closing Cost
Next steps
Once you isolate the variable, you can make your future runs reproducible and easier to audit:
Lock the date basis
- Use one consistent “SOL start date” definition for every run in US-WA.
Use a consistent component set
- If your workflow uses multiple cost categories, save the same category set each time.
Keep jurisdiction fixed
- For Washington, always ensure the tool is set to US-WA so the SOL default remains the 5-year general period in RCW 9A.04.080.
Document assumptions
- A short note like: “incurred at signing,” “round to nearest dollar,” “SOL start = ___” prevents future “same workflow, different result” confusion.
Pitfall to avoid: If one run includes a cost item the other omits—or uses a different incurred date for that item—the difference may look “legal/jurisdictional” even though it’s really an input/timing mismatch.
Related reading
- Average closing costs in Alabama — Rule summary with authoritative citations
- Average closing costs in Alaska — Rule summary with authoritative citations
- Average closing costs in Arizona — Rule summary with authoritative citations