Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Hill v. Fairfield Columbia Ridge, LLC

Court of Appeals of Oregon

• Citations: 348 Or. App. 17
• Docket Number: A185219
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Kamins

• Disposition: Affirmed.

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

No. 227 March 25, 2026 17

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

Tammy HILL,
an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FAIRFIELD COLUMBIA RIDGE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, and
WPL Associates, an assumed business name for
Kinsel Ameri Properties, Inc.,
an Oregon domestic business corporation,
Defendants-Respondents.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
22CV28543; A185219

Thomas M. Christ, Judge pro tempore.
Submitted March 5, 2026.
Tammy Hill filed the brief pro se.
Bruce C. Smith and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
LLP, filed the brief for respondent Fairfield Columbia Ridge,
LLC.
Claire M. Whittal and Gillaspy Rhode Dfaddis & Benn,
LLC, filed the brief for respondent WPL Associates.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
KAMINS, J.
Affirmed.
18 Hill v. Fairfield Columbia Ridge, LLC

KAMINS, J.
In this landlord-tenant dispute, plaintiff appeals
the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants.
She assigns error to the trial court’s conclusion that her neg-
ligence and Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
(ORLTA) claims accrued in 2019 and were thus time-barred
by the statutes of limitations. For the reasons explained
below, we affirm.
We review “the trial court’s grant of summary judg-
ment for errors of law and will affirm if there are no genuine
disputes about any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Beneficial Oregon,
Inc. v. Bivins, 313 Or App 275, 277, 496 P3d 1104 (2021)
(internal quotation marks omitted); ORCP 47 C. No genu-
ine issue of material fact exists when, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the adverse party, “no objec-
tively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse
party.” ORCP 47 C.
Negligence claims are subject to a two-year stat-
ute of limitations under ORS 12.110(1). A negligence claim
accrues when the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of rea-
sonable care, should have known facts establishing harm,
causation, and tortious conduct. Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or
247, 256, 864 P2d 1319 (1994). ORLTA claims are subject to
a one-year statute of limitations period, which begins to run
when the facts necessary to establish the statutory violation
have occurred and the tenant has a right to bring suit. ORS
12.125. Unlike negligence claims, accrual does not depend
on the tenant’s knowledge of or full extent of the injury.
Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc., 325 Or App
648, 659, 531 P3d 152 (2023).
Both of plaintiff’’s claims accrued in March 2019,
when plaintiff observed mold in her unit and sought medical
treatment for symptoms she attributed to it. See Doughton
v. Morrow, 255 Or App 422, 431-32, 298 P3d 578 (2013) (neg-
ligence claim against developer accrued for limitations pur-
poses when the property owners first noticed gravel issues
and expressed concern about them); Hathaway, 325 Or App
at 663 (in the absence of a discovery rule, a limitations
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 17 (2026) 19

period begins to run when every fact necessary for the
plaintiff to prove the elements of their claim has occurred
and the plaintiff has a right to sue). Because she did not file
suit until August 2022, both claims are time-barred.
Plaintiff contends that her claims did not accrue
until June 2022, when a pipe leak allegedly caused addi-
tional contamination in her unit. Assuming that argument
is preserved, we disagree. The fact that plaintiff observed
mold shortly after moving in and sought medical treatment
for the alleged mold-related illness is sufficient to establish
discovery of harm and its alleged cause in March 2019.
Thus, the trial court did not err in granting sum-
mary judgment to defendants, because plaintiff’s claims
were time-barred under the relevant statutes of limitations.
Affirmed.