- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 12-10-2014
- Case #: A151821
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; Ortega, J.; & Garrett, P.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s granting of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs had brought negligence and negligence per se actions against Defendant and one other defendant, for alleged defects in the construction of their home, which was built in 2001, and purchased by Plaintiffs in 2004. Plaintiffs filed their claim in 2010. Summary judgment was granted on the basis that, absent a discovery rule, Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.080(3), which governs actions for “interference with or injury to any interest of another in real property[.]” On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that ORS 12.080(3) includes a discovery rule. Defendant disagreed, and in the alternative argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1). The Court found that ORS 12.080(3) does contain a discovery rule, and that claims under that statute accrue under ORS 12.010 upon discovery. The Court held that ORS 12.080(3) governs, and is triggered by the discovery of a claim. It found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, because genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to the question of when plaintiffs actually discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged injury. Reversed and remanded.