Schreiner Farms, Inc. v. American Tower, Inc.
293 P.3d 407
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Schreiner leased land in Klickitat County to Nextel in 1999 for a cellular site.
- Nextel assigned the lease to Tower Asset Sub (SpectraSite) in 2000; Schreiner was notified.
- SpectraSite subleased to Washington Oregon Wireless in 2000; Schreiner consented.
- SpectraSite merged with American Tower in 2005.
- Schreiner sued for declaratory relief in 2007 alleging multiple defaults and permit violations; court granted partial then complete summary dismissal for untimeliness.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment; Schreiner appealed after reconsideration ruling that discovery rule not applicable and concealment not pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule extends time for UDJA claims | Schreiner seeks extension analogically | Respondents argue no extension for UDJA | No extension; time barred under six-year contract analogs |
| Whether continuing breach extends accrual period | Schreiner claims ongoing breaches toll accrual | No extension; breaches began in 2000 | Continuing breach not recognized to extend accrual; time barred |
| Fraudulent concealment as tolling mechanism | Fraudulent concealment prevented discovery | Complaint lacks explicit concealment pleading | Not applicable; not pleaded as fraud; time barred |
| Preservation of issues for review | Some theories raised on reconsideration | Not preserved below for certain theories | Failure to cure and equitable estoppel not reviewable; continuing breach reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- 1000 Virginia Ltd. Partnership v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wn.2d 566 (2006) (discovery rule not extended to general contract claims)
- Bowles v. Dep’t of Ret. Sys., 121 Wn.2d 52 (1993) (discovery rule for accrual in contract cases)
- Kinney v. Cook, 150 Wn. App. 187 (2009) (refusal to extend discovery rule to contract claims)
- Reid v. Dalton, 124 Wn. App. 113 (2004) (filing declaratory relief does not avoid statute of limitations)
- Brutsche v. City of Kent, 78 Wn. App. 370 (1995) (reasonable time governs UDJA actions)
- City of Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. App. 530 (1991) (use longer limitation period when multiple analogs apply)
- Ford v. Int’l Harvester Co., 399 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1968) (continuing breach not extending accrual under Washington law)
- Akada v. Park 12-01 Corp., 103 Wn.2d 717 (1985) (consideration of longer analogous period when multiple apply)
- Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wn.2d 537 (2012) ( UDJA accrual analyzed by analogy)
- Cary v. Mason County, 132 Wn. App. 495 (2006) (discovers rule applied by analogy; multiple analogies considered)