However, not every cause of action predicated on statutory liability is subject to the two-
year statute of limitations. Sorey, 82 Wn. App. at 805. Here, Mr. Silver argues that a
three-year limitation period applies:
An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an
action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person
or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated;
RCW 4.16.080(2).
3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 36165-9-III
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
Mr. Silver pleaded his action under RCW 59.18.280. In pertinent part, that statute
provides:
Within twenty-one days after the termination of the rental agreement and
vacation of the premises . . . the landlord shall give a full and specific
statement of the basis for retaining any of the deposit together with the
payment of any refund due the tenant under the terms and conditions of the
rental agreement.
RCW 59.18.280(1). In case of violation of § 280, the legislature provided that the entire
damage deposit would be returned to the tenant and the trial court was authorized to
provide for damages in double the amount of the damage deposit and reasonable attorney
fees. RCW 59.18.280(2). These were the remedies demanded by the complaint. Clerk’s
Papers (CP) at 10.
Mr. Silver argues that his claim is for return of his damage deposit and
accompanying damages and should be considered an action for return of personal
property under the three-year statute of limitations. He likens his situation to that in
Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Ass’n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wn.2d 824, 991
P.2d 1126 (2000) (SPEEA). There, new Boeing employees were required to attend a