The Endresens cite three Oregon appellate decisions in support of their argument that the Construction Defect Claims did not “accrue” until after their chapter 7 filing. SeeAbraham v. T. Henry Const., Inc., 350 Or. 29, 249 P.3d 534 (2011) ; Berry v. Branner, 245 Or. 307, 421 P.2d 996 (1966) ; and Tavtigian–Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC, 266 Or.App. 220, 337 P.3d 925 (2014). The decision in Berry v. Branner focused on the definition of the word “accrued” in the context of Oregon's general limitations statute, O.R.S. 12.010, and concluded that the limitations period did not begin to run until the subject medical malpractice claim was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.
In the years since Rice , we have attached the discovery rule in ORS 12.010 to a number of other statutes of limitations in ORS chapter 12 by following the same analysis. See Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ , 316 Or App 186, 200, 504 P3d 15 (2021), rev. den , 369 Or 507, 507 P.3d 271 (2022) (attaching discovery rule in ORS 12.010 to limitation period in ORS 12.140 ); Hammond v. Hammond , 296 Or App 321, 334, 438 P3d 408 (2019) (attaching discovery rule in ORS 12.010 to 12.050 ); Tavtigian-Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC , 266 Or App 220, 222, 337 P.3d 925 (2014) (attaching discovery rule in ORS 12.010 to ORS 12.080(3) ). Discerning whether ORS 12.010 attaches a discovery rule to ORS 12.125 seems like a simple question on first blush.
-------- In Tavtigian–Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC, 266 Or.App. 220, 337 P.3d 925 (2014), we addressed the second part of the conclusion to be reached here. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or. 721, 320 P.3d 554 (2014), we held that ORS 12.080(3) does contain a discovery rule. Tavtigian–Coburn, 266 Or.App. at 222, 337 P.3d 925. Like claims under ORS 12.080(4) for injury to personal property in Rice, claims under ORS 12.080(3) for injury to an interest in real property accrue under ORS 12.010 upon discovery.
In the light of Rice, we conclude that the Association's construction-defect claims are subject to a discovery rule. See Tavtigian–Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC, 266 Or.App. 220, 337 P.3d 925 (2014) (explaining that the reasoning in Rice applies equally to the statute of limitations in ORS 12.080(3) ). We turn, then, to the application of that rule.
It followed Rice's reasoning directly and held that “the discovery rule also applies to the limitation period in ORS 12.080(3) for claims of an injury to an interest in real property” because ORS 12.010 applied to the statute. Hammond v. Hammond, 296 Or.App. 321, 333, 438 P.3d 408, 416 (2019) (citing Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc., 267 Or.App. 506, 340 P.3d 169 (2014) and Tavtigian-Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC, 266 Or.App. 220, 337 P.3d 925 (2014)).
Since Rice was decided, we have applied its reasoning to several other statutes of limitations that fall within the purview of ORS 12.010. In Tavtigian-Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC , 266 Or App 220, 222, 337 P.3d 925 (2014), and Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc. , 267 Or App 506, 508, 340 P.3d 169 (2014), aff'd on other grounds , 359 Or. 694, 375 P.3d 463 (2016), we relied on Rice and followed the same reasoning to hold that the discovery rule applies to ORS 12.080(3). ORS 12.080(3) requires actions "for waste or trespass upon or for interference with or injury to any interest of another in real property, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.050, 12.060, 12.135, 12.137 and 273.241," to "be commenced within six years."
Since Rice was decided, we have applied its reasoning to several other statutes of limitations that fall within the purview of ORS 12.010. In Tavtigian-Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC, 266 Or.App. 220, 222, 337 P.3d 925 (2014), and Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc., 267 Or.App. 506, 508, 340 P.3d 169 (2014), affd on other grounds, 359 Or. 694, 375 P.3d 463 (2016), we relied on Rice and followed the same reasoning to hold that the discovery rule applies to ORS 12.080(3). ORS 12.080(3) requires actions "for waste or trespass upon or for interference with or injury to any interest of another in real property, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.050, 12.060, 12.135, 12.137 and 273.241," to "be commenced within six years." In Hammond, 296 Or.App. at 323, 332-34, which involved an ejectment claim, we relied on Rice and followed the same reasoning to hold that the discovery rule applies to ORS 12.050.
Following the reasoning in Rice , we have held that the discovery rule also applies to the limitation period in ORS 12.080(3) for claims of an injury to an interest in real property. See Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc. , 267 Or. App. 506, 340 P.3d 169 (2014), aff’d on other grounds , 359 Or. 694, 375 P.3d 463 (2016) ; Tavtigian-Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC , 266 Or. App. 220, 337 P.3d 925 (2014). We do so again here, with respect to ORS 12.050, agreeing with defendant that the discovery rule applies to the statute of limitations for ejectment claims.