of limitations applies because a tenant’s action to recover their deposit based on the
landlord’s alleged violation of the RLTA is an action to recover personal property.
The catchall statute of limitations cannot apply because RCW 4.16.080(2) does.
The question of which statute of limitations applies is a question of law we
review de novo. Sorey v. Barton Oldsmobile, 82 Wn. App. 800, 802, 919 P.2d 1276
(1996). Additionally, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss de
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
No. 98024-1
novo. 5 Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 184 Wn.2d 252, 257, 359 P.3d 746 (2015).
Factual allegations contained in the complaint are accepted as true. Id. The court will
grant the motion only if it finds that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts consistent
with the complaint that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 257-58.
A. Statute of Limitations
The court’s fundamental objective in interpreting statutes “is to ascertain and
carry out the Legislature’s intent.” Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC,
146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Thus, our analysis begins with the RLTA itself
and the nature of security deposits under that act.
The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a transformation in residential landlord-tenant
law, informed by the civil rights movement and a recognition of shelter as a basic
human necessity. See generally Edward H. Rabin, The Revolution in Residential
Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences, 69 CORNELL L. REV. 517 (1984).6
While communities across the country endeavored to improve social and economic