Opinion ID: 1162670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: RCW 4.16.080(3) Applicable to Refunds.

Text: [31] While the trial court's order does not expressly cite the basis for the court's conclusion that a 3-year limitation period is applicable, both parties appear to agree that the trial court relied upon Hart v. Clark Cy., 52 Wn. App. 113, 758 P.2d 515 (1988). In Hart, the 3-year limitation period of RCW 4.16.080(3) was applied to an action for refund of money paid pursuant to a county ordinance, later held to impose an invalid tax, which required park development fees. Following this court's decision in Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cy., 97 Wn.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982), the County in Hart ceased imposing the fees and the plaintiffs filed suit. By affirming the trial court's application of the 3-year statute of limitation, the Court of Appeals in Hart barred the majority of the plaintiffs' claims. The court characterized the action as one based partly on an implied liability to repay money unlawfully received, and partly upon a theory of unjust enrichment, both theories subject to application of a 3-year statute. Hart, 52 Wn. App. at 116, 118. RCW 4.16.080(3) limits actions to 3 years for an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, which is not in writing, and does not arise out of any written instrument. (Italics ours.) The court in Hart relied on decisions in which this court had applied the 3-year limitation period to refund actions for invalid taxes: The Washington Supreme Court has applied RCW 4.16.080(3) to refund actions for invalid taxes. In Corwin Inv. Co. v. White, 166 Wash. 195, 6 P.2d 607 (1932), the court stated that [a]n action against a county to recover void taxes is one which arises upon an implied contract, not in writing, and the three-year statute of limitations applies. ... The underlying principle for the application of the 3-year statute of limitations is that suits seeking tax refunds are actions arising out of implied liabilities to repay money unlawfully received ... Adams Cy. v. Ritzville State Bank, 154 Wash. 140, 144, 281 P. 332 (1929). In the present case, the trial court properly applied the 3-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court in Hills Homes ruled that the fees imposed upon residential developments constitute taxes for which there had been no express grant of authority by the State Legislature. Therefore, these fees are without authority and invalid. Hillis Homes, 97 Wn.2d at 808. Hart, 52 Wn. App. at 115-16. We observe that in the Brief of Appellants, at 21, it is stated: Here the City is improperly holding fees involuntarily paid under an invalid ordinance for real property development. This characterization of the Robinsons' demand for recovery is entirely consistent with the theory in Hart. Accordingly, we hold that to the extent relief is available to the plaintiffs on a basis other than the federal statutory civil rights relief of section 1983 ( i.e., if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful in their section 1983 action or seek refunds for payments made prior to declarations of ordinance invalidity), the 3-year statute of limitation of RCW 4.16.080(3) properly applies to the Robinsons' claims.