Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc.

“ORS 12.125 states that ‘[a]n action arising under a rental agreement or [ORTLA] shall be commenced within one year.’” ORS 12.010 states that statute of limitations for actions brought under ORS chapter 12 are tolled “after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Under Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), “[a] claim ‘accrue[s]’ under ORS 12.010 when the “plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge’ of the claim.”

Respondents filed a class action against their landlords (Appellants) alleging, inter alia, their utility billing practices violated the Oregon Landlord Tenant Act (ORTLA). The trial court certified the class, and entered summary judgment in favor of Respondents on that claim. On appeal, Appellants, inter alia, assigned error to the trial court’s class certification ruling. Appellants argued that the trial court erred when it applied a discovery rule which tolls the one-year statute of limitations only after the “tenant knew or reasonably should have known that they had a cause of action under the ORTLA.” Specifically, Appellants argued that the legislature did not intend for ORS 12.125 to incorporate the discovery rule. “ORS 12.125 states that ‘[a]n action arising under a rental agreement or [ORTLA] shall be commenced within one year.’” However, Respondents argued that although ORS 12.125 does not incorporate a discovery rule on its face, it does so by operation of ORS 12.010, which states that statute of limitations for actions brought under ORS chapter 12 are tolled “after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Under Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), “[a] claim ‘accrue[s]’ under ORS 12.010 when the “plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge’ of the claim.” The Court reasoned that because the legislature did not specify that the Office of Legislative Counsel codify ORTLA’s one-year statute of limitation into ORS chapter 12, there was no legislative intent for the accrual language of 12.010 to apply. The Court held that ORS 12.010’s discovery rule does not attach to any statute of limitations codified in ORS chapter 12 absent specific triggering language that indicates legislative intent for it to do so. Thus, ORTLA’s one-year statute of limitations tolled when the billing violations occurred, not when they were discovered by Respondents, and the trial court erred in certifying the class. Reversed and remanded.