Rice v. Rabb
320 P.3d 554
| Or. | 2014Background
- Rice v. Rabb involved a claim for conversion and replevin of the 1930 ‘Queen Outfit’ inherited by Rice’s husband from his mother, Lois McIntyre, the Pendleton Round-Up’s queen; Rice, blind, claimed she did not learn of the removal of the outfit from the Hall of Fame until 2007.
- The outfit was initially delivered to the Hall of Fame for display in the 1970s; in 2000 the defendant (as an heir of Lieuallen) took possession on behalf of Lieuallen.
- Rice filed a six-year limitation action under ORS 12.080(4) for taking, detaining or injuring personal property, arguing accrual occurred upon discovery that the outfit was removed.
- The trial court dismissed as time-barred, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no discovery rule applied to ORS 12.080(4).
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that ORS 12.080(4) incorporates a discovery rule via ORS 12.010, so accrual occurs when Rice knew or reasonably should have known the elements of the claims.
- The court remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Rice’s allegations establish actual or constructive discovery in 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 12.080(4) incorporates a discovery rule | Rice contends discovery rule tolls accrual | Lieuallen argues Berry limits accrual to discovery-notion only where explicitly stated | Yes; discovery rule applies and accrual occurs upon discovery |
| When the six-year period begins for conversion/replevin | Accrual in 2007 when discovery occurred | Accrual at the time of wrongful act (2000) | accrual begins at discovery, not merely at wrongful act |
| Whether Berry supports applying discovery rule to ORS 12.080(4) | Berry supports discovery-based accrual | Berry limited; not applicable to ORS 12.080(4) | Berry applies; discovery rule can apply to ORS 12.080(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Branner, 245 Or 307 (Or. 1966) (accrual occurs when plaintiff learns of injury; discovery rule may apply even without explicit text)
- Doe v. Lake Oswego School District, 353 Or 321 (Or. 2013) (discovery rule applicable to offensive-contact battery claim)
- Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co., 332 Or 226 (Or. 2001) (statute of limitations context; development of discovery-rule interpretation)
- Huff v. Great Western Seed Co., 322 Or 457 (Or. 1996) (occurrence/accrual terminology affecting discovery rule)
- Moore v. Mutual Enumclaw Ins. Co., 317 Or 235 (Or. 1993) (distinguishes inception-of-loss from accrual under ORS 12.010)
- Vaughn v. Langmack, 236 Or 542 (Or. 1964) (legislative amendments and discovery-rule implications)