that he was seeking return of his damage deposit, a property right protected by RCW
4.16.080(2). If he had filed a replevin action, we would agree with him. However, his
complaint is expressly predicated on the landlord’s duty under RCW 59.18.280(1) to
respond within twenty-one days by either returning a damage deposit or providing a final
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 36165-9-III
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
statement justifying the withholding of some or all of the deposit. He seeks the remedies
accorded by that statute. He does not assert that he did less than $300 damage to the
apartment.
We conclude that this is an action to enforce the statute, not an action for return of
property. It is the difference between saying "I did not do $300 worth of damage, return
my deposit," and saying "you did not respond in a timely fashion as required, so pay me
the statutory remedies." The former involves a personal right of the plaintiff to
possession of his own funds. The latter involves a breach of statutory duty in derogation
of the plaintiffs rights.
This was an action to enforce the deposit return obligation of the RLTA. It was
not an action for return of personal property. The two-year statute of limitations period
applied. RCW 4.16.130.
This action was brought more than two years after it had accrued. The trial court
correctly determined that it was untimely.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
lA.w;Sc.., W �tM._\;t
Siddoway, J. Lawrence-Berr , CJ.
I
C.' �'
6