court refund each class member’s security deposit, give each class member double the
amount of the deposit, and award attorney fees costs. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 10.
Rudeen eventually moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action was filed
outside the two-year statute of limitations. Silver contended that his action was subject to
the three-year statute of limitations governing recovery of personal property. The trial
court concluded that the only cause of action asserted was a violation of the RLTA
governed by a two-year statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment and
dismissed the case for untimely filing.
Mr. Silver timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal without
hearing oral argument.
2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 36165-9-III
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue presented is whether the two- or three-year statute of limitations
period applied to this complaint. We agree with the trial court that the two-year period
applied.
The issue of which statute of limitations applies is a legal question that this court
considers de novo. Sorey v. Barton Oldsmobile, 82 Wn. App. 800, 802, 919 P.2d 1276
(1996). If there is uncertainty about which statute applies, “the longer statute will be
applied.” Stenberg v. Pac. Power & Light Co., 104 Wn.2d 710, 715, 709 P.2d 793
(1985).
The RLTA does not contain a statute of limitations. Typically, when a statute
does not contain its own statute of limitations, RCW 4.16.130 applies. That statute
provides:
An action for relief not hereinbefore provided for, shall be commenced
within two years after the cause of action shall have accrued.