Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.080

Section 12.080’s six-year limit for contract actions begins to run on a demand loan when the loan is made.

Ricker v. Ricker, Administratrix · filed 1954-05-12

It follows, therefore, that the statute of limitation commenced to run against plaintiff on December 8, 1919, the date it is claimed the loan was made.

Section 12.080(1) gives six years to bring a contract action; the period for this insurance claim began when the insurer breached the policy.

Brown v. First Insurance · filed 1968-12-18(1)

Since both Oregon and Hawaii have six-year statutes of limitations for contract actions, ORS 12.080(1); Revised Laws of Hawaii, Ch. 241, § 241-1 (a) (1965 Supp.), the Oregon “borrowing” statute, ORS 12.260, is inapplicable. ... Plaintiffs might have been able to bring a declaratory judgment action after September, 1959, but there was no breach of the insurance contract until May of 1962.

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limitations period for a claim between joint venturers begins when their shared business is settled.

Edward J. Moran and Thomas J. O'loughlin, Doing Business as Moran Lumber Co., a Copartnership v. H. W. S. Lumber Co., In · filed 1976-06-15(1)

However, as demonstrated by the above authorities, a joint venture is likened to a partnership [McDonald] in which no cause of suit or action arises in favor of one against the other until the partnership business is settled. The statute of limitations does not begin to run until that time.

Section 12.080(1) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a contract action; a claim for unpaid pension benefits accrues when the employer first fails to pay the benefits due.

Kantor v. Boise Cascade Corp. · filed 1985-10-16(1)

The first assignment of error raises the issue of whether plaintiffs action is barred by the time limitation of ORS 12.080(1), which provides, as relevant, that “[a]n action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, * * * shall be commenced within six years.” ... Therefore it did not breach the contract until April or May, 1982, when it first paid him pension benefits calculated on the basis of the 1966 rehire date. Plaintiffs action was timely.

The six-year period for a contract rent claim depends on when the right to payment accrues under the contract.

Obrist v. Aylett · filed 1989-10-25

The meaning of the contract determines the date of the alleged default in payment for the 1980 crops. ... The language of the contract and the conduct of the parties is evidence that supports plaintiffs contention that his right to payment did not accrue until the crops were sold. The court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants.

Section 12.080(1) gives an insured six years to bring a UM/UIM contract claim, with the period beginning when the insurer breaches the policy.

Vega v. Farmers Insurance · filed 1995-05-17(1)

An action by an insured against an insurer for UM/UIM coverage is based on their contract and the insurer’s liability stems from that contractual relationship. ... An action on a contract accrues when there is a breach. ... Defendant refused to participate in arbitration. Plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued at that time, and was, therefore, timely filed in August 1993.

A conversion claim must be filed within six years after the conversion occurs.

Everman v. Lockwood · filed 1996-10-09(4)

Plaintiff agrees that ORS 12.080(4) applies and that an action must be filed within six years of the time that conversion occurs. ... We agree that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that conversion occurred in 1986. ... The trial court did not err in holding that plaintiffs claim is barred.

Section 12.080(1) provides six years to bring a contract claim, and the period runs separately for each distinct breach.

Alderson v. State of Oregon · filed 1991-02-13(1)

It follows that its breach can be actionable, see ORS 30.320, and that the six-year contract limitation period under ORS 12.080(1) applies. ... Not all of the harm here was caused by the same act; each deduction was a separate breach, as alleged by plaintiffs, and the statute began to run separately as to each alleged breach.

Each separate breach of a contract starts its own six-year limitations period under § 12.080(1).

Bohm v. Oregon Institute of Technology · filed 1994-02-09(1)

As in Alderson, the statute of limitations began to run separately from each alleged breach, and claims based on conduct subsequent to June 3,1985, are within the six-year period of limitations.

Section 12.080 allows six years to sue for a breach of contract; an earlier breach does not bar a timely claim for a later breach.

Smith v. Oregon Department of Water Resources · filed 1994-09-07

It first concluded that, notwithstanding the equitable relief that plaintiff sought, the “claim sounds in contract,” and ORS 12.080, the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, is applicable. We agree with that conclusion. ... There is evidence that it failed to do so in 1989 and 1990, less than six years before plaintiff brought the action. Accordingly, we cannot say, as a matter of law, based on the evidence in the present record, that the failure to deliver the water in 1989 and 1990 is not an actionable breach for which a timely action was brought.

ORS 12.080(1) gives a plaintiff six years from breach to bring a contract claim and has no discovery rule.

Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc. · filed 2008-12-24(1)

In sum, the applicable statute of limitations for plaintiffs’ contract claims is, without a discovery rule, six years from the date of breach.

Section 12.080(1) gives a separate six-year limitations period to each breach of a contract.

Pritchard v. Blueshield · filed 2009-01-28(1)

The statute of limitations began to run from each reimbursement, and claims based on reimbursements after December 18, 2000, are therefore not time-barred.

Section 12.080(1) gives plaintiffs six years from breach to bring a contract claim, without a discovery rule.

Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. · filed 2009-09-02(1)

First, we agree with the trial court that plaintiffs’ contract claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in ORS 12.080(1). ... For the reasons stated in that case, we agree with the trial court that the applicable statute of limitations for plaintiffs’ contract claims is six years from the date of breach and that no discovery rule applies.

Section 12.080(1) gives a party six years from a contract breach to file a claim and has no discovery rule.

Communication Management Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. · filed 2014-12-15(1)

The six-year statute of limitations in § 12.080(1) does not incorporate a discovery rule, and, therefore, the statute imposes a limitation of “six years from the date of the breach.”

Section 12.080(1) gives a party six years to bring a money-had-and-received claim, beginning when the other party receives the benefit of payment.

Angelini v. Delaney · filed 1998-09-30(1)

The six-year statute of limitations for implied contract claims, ORS 12.080(1), governs. ... Consequently, plaintiffs “received payment” from Dolphin, triggering the six-year limitations period, as Dolphin paid off the Vista-related loans. Each of those third-party loans was paid off no later than January 12, 1988, more than six years before the commencement of this action. Thus, recovery based on the payment of those third-party loans was time-barred.

Section 12.080’s six-year limit for contract actions did not govern a lease deficiency that accrued after the four-year lease limitation took effect; under an optional acceleration clause, the balance accrued when the lessor accelerated it.

Federal Recovery of Washington, Inc. v. Wingfield · filed 1999-08-04(1)

At the time that defendants defaulted on the August 1991 installment, the statute of limitations governing all actions for breach of contract was ORS 12.080, which provided, in part: ... “shall be commenced within six years.” ... Plaintiff did not exercise its option to accelerate on the balance of the lease until November 1991, and, consequently, its cause of action for the balance of the lease did not accrue until that time.

Section 12.080 gives a breach-of-contract claim six years from the date of breach, rather than the date of the contract.

Ditech Holding Corporation · filed 2021-10-03

In an action for breach of contract, the six-year statute of limitations runs from the date of breach, not the date of the contract.

Section 12.080 gives six years to sue on a contract; when a lender does not accelerate a promissory note, a claim for the full unpaid balance accrues at maturity.

Foundation of Human Understanding v. Talk Radio Network, Inc. · filed 2022-12-23

Because FHU did not accelerate the debt following TRN’s nonpayment, FHU’s first claim did not accrue until the maturity date of the Promissory Note in September 2014. Because this case was filed in August 2020, less than six years after the maturity date of the loan, it is not time-barred.

Section 12.080 gives contractual claims a six-year limitations period.

Mitchell v. Kott · filed 2024-07-30

Any contractual claim has a six-year statute of limitations. ORS 12.080.

Section 12.080(1) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a contract claim; here, the period ran from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the breach.

Paxton v. Simich · filed 2026-05-28(1)

The question on appeal is whether there is a genu- ine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff knew or should have known that defendant breached the contract more than six years before plaintiff filed this action. ... That is, because plaintiff knew or should have known that the contract was breached in August and September, we affirm.

Section 12.080 gives six years from breach to bring a contract claim, subject to equitable tolling when the breach was fraudulently concealed.

Roles-Heintz v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC · filed 2025-01-28

However, the court in Waxman further states that with respect to when a breach of contract claim starts to accrue, “[t]he one exception to that rule applies in cases of fraudulent concealment.” Waxman, at 512, citing Chaney v. Fields Chevrolet, 264 Or. at 27. As noted, Roles-Heintz has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of equitable tolling. Therefore, she has alleged sufficient facts to raise a breach of contract claim against Capital One.

Section 12.080(3) provides a six-year limitations period for trespass upon real property.

Fairview Farms, Inc. v. Reynolds Metals Company · filed 1959-07-09(3)

Since this Court has found that Fair-view’s cause rests firmly in trespass and not in nuisance, ORS 12.080, supra (six years), controls, and, therefore, Fair-view’s action for the entire claim period commencing April 1, 1947, and continuing through December 31, 1955, is not barred.

Section 12.080 provides a six-year limitations period for trespass to land, including trespass caused by deposited fluoride particulates.

MARTIN ET UX v. Reynolds Metals Co. · filed 1959-07-29

On the other hand, if the defendant’s conduct resulted in a trespass upon plaintiffs’ land the six-year statute of limitations provided for in OES 12.080 would he applicable and plaintiffs would be entitled to recover damages resulting from the trespasses by defendant during the period from August 22,1951 to January 1,1956. ... We are of the opinion, therefore, that the intrusion of the fluoride particulates in the present case constituted a trespass.

Section 12.080 provides a six-year limitations period for trespass, which governs when conduct constitutes both trespass and nuisance.

Reynolds Metals Company, a Corporation v. Paul Martin and Verla Martin, Husband and Wife · filed 1964-10-20

In taking this position the company sought to apply the two-year statute of limitations applicable to nuisance actions (ORS 12.110), instead of the six-year statute applicable to actions sounding in trespass. ORS 12.080. ... We are therefore of the opinion that, under Oregon law, the conduct complained of is both a trespass and a nuisance but that the trespass aspect of the case will govern in determining which statute of limitations is to be applied.

Section 12.080(3) provides a six-year limitation period for trespasses to land, including injuries caused by a substantial invading force.

Reter v. Talent Irrigation District · filed 1971-03-10(3)

Since we have determined that the cause of action could properly be laid in trespass, the six-year limitation period provided for in ORS 12.080(3) for trespasses to land is applicable.

Section 12.080(3) provides a six-year limitation period for trespass upon real property, including a trespass caused by a negligently started fire spreading onto another’s land.

Martin v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 1970-09-30(3)

We hold that the invasion in the present case resulting from defendants’ negligent conduct constituted a trespass. ... Therefore, the action is governed by ORS 12.080 (3).

Section 12.080(3)’s six-year period for trespass begins when the trespass originates, even if the trespass continues.

Denora v. Fischer Engineering & Maintenance Co. · filed 1982-01-06(3)

... In either type of case it is clear that the statute of limitations begins to run when the trespass or interference originates, because the cause of action has accrued. ... That dictum correctly states the law; therefore, the statute of limitations barred plaintiffs action against the defendants for whom summary judgment was granted.

Section 12.080(3) gives plaintiffs six years after discovering facts supporting a trespass or nuisance claim involving real property to bring the action.

Ward v. Jarnport · filed 1992-11-04(3)

The limitation period for commencing nuisance and trespass actions is 6 years. ORS 12.080(3). ... A reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiffs filed, this action within six years after discovering facts giving rise to an action for trespass or nuisance.

Section 12.080 sets a six-year limit for contract actions, subject to a special statutory limit for fire insurance actions.

Bell v. Quaker City Fire & Marine Insurance · filed 1962-03-21

In effect, the legislature has amended OBS 12.080 and the case is no different than if the limitation with respect to insurance contracts had been added to that section by way of exception or proviso.

Section 12.080 supplies the general limitation period for a contract action under a voluntary compensation insurance endorsement.

Shore v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · filed 1965-04-01

While it is true that plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the compensation and other benefits payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, there is nothing in the Coverage C endorsement which would indicate an intention to substitute the limitations of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for those of general application to actions on contracts.

Section 12.080 gives a plaintiff six years to bring an implied-warranty claim, with the warranty generally breached when the goods are delivered.

Arrow Transportation Company v. Fruehauf Corporation · filed 1968-03-12

Generally, such a warranty is breached at the time of the delivery of the goods. Here, the claim of liability is based on an accident occurring some eight years after the purchase of the article. ORS 12.080, requiring this type of an action to be commenced within six years, is applicable.

Section 12.080(1)'s six-year period does not apply to an implied contract claim based on a duty of reasonable care that exists independently of the contract.

Villalobos v. University of Oregon · filed 1980-07-14(1)

We find the emphasized language in the above paragraph dispositive in the context of this case. The alleged contract here incorporates by implication a general standard of care to which defendant would be bound independent of any warranty. ... The applicable statute of limitations is ORS 30.275(3) which the trial court properly applied.

Section 12.080 gives a party six years to bring a breach-of-warranty claim.

DeCicco v. Uniroyal, Inc. · filed 1968-10-24

ORS 12.080, the Oregon six year statute of limitations is applicable. ... Inasmuch as this action was commenced on June 16, 1967, all claims for breaches of warranty occurring prior to June 16, 1961, are barred.

Section 12.080’s six-year contract limitations period governs an insured’s claim against an insurer for uninsured motorist benefits.

Turlay v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 1971-09-10

The sole remaining question is whether plaintiff's right to recover against defendant is controlled by the six-year contract statute of limitations provided by ORS 12.080, or the two-year tort statute of limitations under ORS 12.110. ... Consequently, the liability of the insurer is based on its contract with the insured, and any claim of the insured also is governed by the contract.

ORS 12.080(1) provides a six-year limitation period for an insured’s uninsured motorist claim against the insurer when the parties have not agreed to a shorter period.

North River Insurance Company v. Kowaleski · filed 1976-07-15(1)

We conclude that in the absence of a specific agreement between the parties, ORS 743.792(12) does not apply. The limitation on defendant’s bringing the action is the six-year period provided for in ORS 12.080(1).

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limitations period applies to common-law indemnity actions because they are based on an implied contract.

Owings v. Rose · filed 1972-06-01(1)

Although it may be incongruous to require a tort action to be brought within two years and permit an indemnity action based on essentially the same facts to be brought at any time within six years after payment on the tort claim, the theory that indemnity is based on an implied contract is well established. As the legislature, in the statute of limitations, specifically provided for implied contracts, we think the statute should be held to cover indemnity actions.

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limitation applies to a builder-vendor claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction and habitability.

Cabal v. Donnelly · filed 1986-02-26(1)

In Beveridge v. King, supra, a majority of this court held that an action on the implied warranty was one for breach of contract and subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations governing contract claims (ORS 12.080(1)), rather than the two-year Statute of Limitations governing tort claims (ORS 12.110(1)). ... We reaffirm our holding in Beveridge v. King, supra, believing that the implied obligation of the vendor is not distinguishable from the express obligations involved in Schmauch v. Johnston, supra.

Section 12.080(3)’s six-year period does not govern claims for breach of a sales contract or warranty when ORS 72.7250 supplies a different limitation period.

Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co. · filed 1999-12-22(3)

Because ORS 12.080(3) is part of ORS chapter 12, ORS 12.010 makes ORS 72.7250 the applicable statute of limitations for claims for breaches of a sales contract and breaches of warranty under ORS chapter 72.

Section 12.080(4) provides a six-year limitations period for tort claims involving personal property, including these claims to recover improper salary payments and stock options.

Teren v. Howard · filed 1963-09-04(4)

We think it clear that ORS 12.110 with its 2 year period applies to torts to a person and that ORS 12.080(4) with a 6 year period applies in this case.

Section 12.080(4) gives a plaintiff six years to bring an action for injury to personal property.

Forsyth v. Cessna Aircraft Company · filed 1975-06-26(4)

Consequently, the Oregon statute, ORS 12.080(4), 5 applies, and the action obviously is not barred under Oregon law.

Section 12.080(4) applies to direct, physical injury to personal property, not financial loss caused by negligent legal advice.

United States National Bank of Oregon v. Davies · filed 1976-04-15(4)

Plaintiff contends ORS 12.080(4) is applicable. ... It is our opinion that the statute contemplates some direct, physical injury to personal property and that it is therefore not applicable.

Section 12.080(4) provides a six-year limitation period for property damage actions.

Lord Electric Co. v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co. · filed 1978-05-16(4)

There being no contractual limitation period binding on the parties in the present action, the appropriate Oregon statute of limitations controls. ORS 12.080(4) (six-year period).

Section 12.080(4) does not apply to fiduciary duty claims that do not involve direct physical injury to personal property.

Sabre Farms, Inc. v. Jordan · filed 1986-04-09(4)

Moreover, the claims here do not involve a direct physical injury to personal property which could make ORS 12.080(4) applicable.

Section 12.080(4)’s six-year period for injury to personal property does not cover a lessee’s economic loss from damage to property owned by the alleged tortfeasor.

Port of Portland v. Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co. · filed 1983-03-02(4)

Defendant’s claim is clearly one for economic loss caused by the unavailability of the crane. ... It follows that defendant’s counterclaim for negligence was governed by ORS 12.110(1) and was therefore time barred.

Section 12.080’s limitations period did not bar the assigned claims under the collective bargaining agreement.

Harmon v. Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp. · filed 1964-01-09

The applicable Oregon statutes... would not bar these claims.

Section 12.080(1) gives a plaintiff six years to sue for breach of contract; a later breach may be timely even when an earlier breach occurred outside that period.

Hollin v. Libby, McNeill & Libby · filed 1969-04-02(1)

We conclude that the plaintiffs in the case at bar had the choice of awaiting a further breach. The one which they alleged as having occurred on July 1, 1961, was within six years of the time action was commenced, and it was error to sustain the demurrer on the ground assigned.

Section 12.080 allows six years to bring a claim for a surplus from the resale of repossessed collateral, whether the claim falls under subsection (1) or (2).

Chaney v. Fields Chevrolet Co. · filed 1972-12-07

As a result, we have come to the conclusion that the limitation in ORS 72.7250 was not intended to cover the present situation and that the applicable provision is either ORS 12.080 (1) or 12.080 (2), both of which ... allow six years within which to bring an action.

Section 12.080 sets a six-year limitations period for actions on implied contracts.

Albino v. Albino · filed 1977-09-13

The statute of limitations in Oregon governing actions on implied contracts is ORS 12.080. The action must be commenced within six years.

Section 12.080(1) applies a six-year limitations period to claims under a domestic water service agreement.

Aspgren v. City of Columbia City · filed 1978-06-20(1)

ORS 12.080. ... There remains the question as to which limitation period is applicable. The City contends that the six-year statute applies. We agree with respect to the Domestic Water Service Agreement.

Section 12.080 provides a six-year limitation period for contract actions.

Bower Trucking & Warehouse Co. v. Multnomah County · filed 1978-08-01

Therefore we conclude that ORS 12.080 providing for a six-year statute of limitations on contract actions controls.

Section 12.080(1) sets a six-year limitations period for contract actions, including claims for breach of an express warranty to repair real property.

HOUSING AUTH. OF PORTLAND v. Ash Nat., Inc. · filed 1978-10-02(1)

Indeed, the tort language of ORS 12.135(1) and the explicit provision for contracts in ORS 12.080(1) lead us to conclude that ORS 12.135(1) was not intended to apply to contract actions. Accordingly, the six year statute of limitations contained in ORS 12.080(1) governs this action.

Section 12.080(1) gives buyers six years to bring a contract claim for breach of an implied obligation to complete a house in a workmanlike manner.

Beveridge v. King · filed 1981-05-05(1)

We perceive no reason why any decision should have addressed it because it is clear that this action is a straight forward one for breach of contract for the sale of improved real property, and, as such, is governed by ORS 12.080(1).

Section 12.080(1) gives six years to bring an unpaid-wages claim based on a contractual obligation, including one assumed by a successor employer.

State Ex Rel. Nilsen v. Ben Jacques Chevrolet Buick, Inc. · filed 1974-03-04(1)

There is no special statute of limitations pertaining to contracts for the payment of wages. Therefore, the general six-year statute of limitations, OES 12.080, ... applies.

Section 12.080 gives a plaintiff six years to sue on a supersedeas appeal bond when the claim rests on the surety’s original undertaking.

Friedman v. Doak · filed 1976-12-16(1)

In our opinion, the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, even when liberally construed, are insufficient to constitute an action upon a judgment. They allege only an action based upon the original undertaking executed by the defendant. We conclude that ORS 12.080 governs and that the applicable statute of limitations is six years.

Section 12.080(1) provides a six-year limitations period for claims based on a failure to fulfill an express contractual duty to repair.

Amfac Foods, Inc. v. Fred A. Snyder Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp. · filed 1979-11-05(1)

Where, as here, the gravamen of the complaint is not the failure of defendant to properly install a roof in the first instance but, rather, the failure of defendant to abide by its express contractual duty to alleviate such unsatisfactory conditions as might appear during the two-year guarantee period, the complaint sounds in contract and ORS 12.080(1) governs.

Section 12.080(1) allows six years to sue for breach of specific contractual commitments, even when the alleged performance was substandard.

Securities-Intermountain, Inc. v. Sunset Fuel Co. · filed 1980-06-03(1)

Given the terms of the written contract, these allegations do not invoke a general professional obligation of architects which was negligently performed; they assert breaches of specific contractual commitments. Thus they plead a cause of action "upon a contract” within ORS 12.080(1) which was commenced within the time permitted by that section.

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limit for actions upon a contract does not apply to a professional negligence claim based on a duty independent of the contract.

Carter v. Wolf Creek Highway Water District · filed 1981-11-09(1)

We also note, although not advanced by defendant, that the six year statute of limitations for actions "upon a contract,” ORS 12.080(1), is not applicable here. Defendant’s only reference in its counterclaim to any contract between the parties came in the allegations that defendant "retained” and "engaged” plaintiff to perform services in consideration of 6% of the total construction costs. This reference to the parties’ agreement was a matter of inducement and not the contractual relationship which gives rise to defendant’s cause of action.

Section 12.080 gives a plaintiff six years to bring an action for breach of contract.

Ogan v. Ellison · filed 1984-05-01

As to defendants’ contention that the statute of limitations has run, in an action based on breach of contract the statute of limitations is six years. ORS 12.080. The contract claims were brought within that time.

Section 12.080(1) gives a plaintiff six years from a breach to bring a contract claim.

Association of Unit Owners of the Inn at Otter Crest v. Far West Federal Bank · filed 1993-05-12(1)

The statute of limitations for contract claims is six years. ORS 12.080(1). The cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the contract is breached.

Section 12.080 provides a six-year limitations period for actions on express or implied contracts.

Jaqua v. Nike, Inc. · filed 1993-12-15(1)

The statute of limitations for actions on express or implied contracts is six years. ORS 12.080. It was error for the trial court to dismiss plaintiffs claims as untimely.

Section 12.080(1) allows six years to bring a contract action, though a shorter limitation in the contract may bar it sooner.

Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Insurance · filed 1982-09-21(1)

This examination leads to the conclusion that plaintiffs claims were not barred by the appropriate statute of limitations, ORS 12.080(1), but that they were barred by operation of the one-year limitation in the contract, the operation of which was not suspended by ORS 12.155.

Section 12.080 imposes a six-year limitations period on claims based on indebtedness.

Stull v. Hoke · filed 1996-05-22

Plaintiffs complaint was filed on May 31, 1994, and all of his claims are untimely because they were brought after the applicable statutes of limitation expired. Plaintiffs first claim is based on an alleged indebtedness and states that on or about May 5, 1987, Hoke “became indebted” to plaintiff. That claim is governed by ORS 12.080 which imposes a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 12.080 gives a party six years after discharging a legal obligation to bring an indemnity claim.

Huff v. Shiomi · filed 1985-05-22

He maintains that, although his allegations may assert facts that could be the basis for a product liability civil action, his claim is for indemnity and, as such, it accrues by virtue of his discharging a legal obligation to plaintiff and may be brought within six years from that time. ORS 12.080. We agree.

Section 12.080(1) sets a six-year limitation period for claims on promissory notes.

Gary M. Buford & Associates, Inc. v. Guillory · filed 1989-10-11(1)

The limitation for claims on the notes is six years. ORS 12.080(1).

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limit makes an action on a demand promissory note facially untimely when the note predates the complaint by more than six years.

Taylor v. Barbecue Time, Inc. · filed 1990-02-14(1)

In its answer, defendant denied those allegations but did not allege the Statute of Limitations, ORS 12.080(1); ORS 12.240, as an affirmative defense. ... The notes demonstrated on their face that they were time-barred.

Section 12.080(1)'s six-year limit does not apply to account or account stated claims arising from sales of goods; those claims are subject to the UCC's four-year limit.

MOORMAN MANUFACTURING CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. Hall · filed 1992-05-13(1)

In this instance, ORS 12.080, the general provision, carves out a specific exception for actions based on the sale of goods, shortening the time within which such actions may be brought.

Section 12.080(1) sets a six-year limitations period for contract actions.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Smith · filed 1999-04-22(1)

RTC succeeded to First Family’s assets within six years of the date of the earliest loan that RTC now claims was inappropriate. Oregon’s statute of limitations for contract actions is six years. ORS 12.080(1). Thus, the statute had not run on any of RTC’s contract claims and RTC had six more years under 12 USC § 1821(d)(14) to bring its contract claims.

Section 12.080(1) gives six years to bring a breach of contract claim, ordinarily running from the breach and subject to tolling for fraudulent concealment.

Bruns v. Walters · filed 2001-07-11(1)

Ordinarily, the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims runs from the date of the breach, although the limitations period will be tolled if the defendant fraudulently conceals the breach.

Section 12.080 sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract actions.

American States Insurance v. Dastar Corp. · filed 2003-01-22(1)

Under Oregon law, the statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years. Or.Rev. Stat. § 12.080 (2001)4; see also Vega v. Farmers Ins. Co., 323 Or. 291, 296, 918 P.2d 95, 98 (1996). ... As Dastar tendered the claim in 1999, Oregon law minimized the need for the parties to waive the statute of limitations, as it could not run before 2005.

Section 12.080 gives a buyer six years to bring a contract claim when a seller fails to deliver property in the condition specified in the purchase agreement.

Archambault v. Ogier · filed 2004-08-04

Their claim based on defendants’ failure to deliver the house in the condition that they represented it to be therefore sounds in contract and is therefore subject to the six-year statute of limitations stated in ORS 12.080.

Section 12.080 gives six years to bring a breach of contract claim; later, independent breaches may be timely even when earlier breaches are time-barred.

Tech 7 Systems, Inc. v. Vacation Acquisition, LLC · filed 2009-02-02

The Oregon statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years. Or.Rev. Stat. § 12.080 (2008). ... The Court concludes that Tech 7’s claims against Vacation Acquisition based on events after it acquired the assets of Vacation Express are timely and may proceed.

Section 12.080 gives a party six years from accrual to bring a contract action.

CACV OF COLORADO, LLC v. Stevens · filed 2012-03-14

Here, the difference between Oregon’s limitation period under ORS 12.080 — six years without tolling because defendant is an Oregon resident — and Delaware’s limitation period — which could run indefinitely because defendant may never become subject to service of process in Delaware — is indisputably substantial. ... Because the two requirements under ORS 12.450 are met, we conclude that Oregon’s six-year limitation period applies in this case. Defendant defaulted on her account in May 2003, and plaintiff brought its breach-of-contract claim in November 2007, which is within six years of its accrual.

Section 12.080 requires an action on an express or implied contract to be commenced within six years of accrual.

Frakes v. Nay · filed 2012-12-19

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Frakes’s complaint states a claim arising out of a contract, such a claim is barred by ORS 12.080, which provides that an “action upon a contract or liability, express or implied” must be commenced within six years of its accrual.

Section 12.080(1) supplies a six-year limitation period for contract actions unless the parties agree to a different period.

Reedsport School District No. 105 v. Gulf Insurance · filed 2007-02-07(1)

Thus, the limitation period found in ORS 12.080(1) is not exclusive but is, instead, effectively a “default” provision — that is, the statutory limitation period governs “[a]n action upon a contract” unless the contracting parties have specified a different limitation period.

Section 12.080 sets a six-year limitations period for actions on contract debts.

Daley v. a & S Collection Associates, Inc. · filed 2010-06-07

The applicable limitations period under Oregon law is six years. ORS 12.080.

Section 12.080 gives six years from accrual to bring a claim for an unpaid credit card balance.

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. Porras · filed 2012-03-28

The effect of that conclusion in this case is that plaintiffs claim was timely filed under ORS 12.080, viz., it was filed within six years of its accrual, and, hence, the trial court ... erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on his statute-of-limitation defense.

Section 12.080(1) gives six years to bring a breach of contract claim arising from construction of an improvement to real property, measured from the breach rather than its discovery.

Doughton v. Morrow · filed 2013-02-27(1)

A breach of contract action for damages arising from the construction, alteration or repair of any improvement to real property is subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 12.080(1) provides a six-year limitations period for contract claims, which the court applied to an ERISA benefits claim.

Smith v. Cigna Health & Life Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-30(1)

Here, that is Oregon’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims. Chuck v. Hewlett Packard Co., 455 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2006); see ORS § 12.080(1).

Section 12.080 provides a six-year limitations period for breach-of-lease claims.

Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLC · filed 2021-01-08

Ross breached its end-of-lease obligations under the Richmond Lease on or about September 30, 2016. Makarios timely asserted its supplemental counterclaims alleging that Ross breached its end-of-lease obligations within the applicable six-year statute of limitations. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.080.

Section 12.080 gives plaintiffs six years to bring state law takings claims.

Foshee v. Lane County · filed 2024-08-26

Under Oregon’s six-year statute of limitations period pursuant to ORS § 12.080, Plaintiff had until September of 2023 to file her state law claims.

Section 12.080 gives six years for other contract claims, but the four-year sale-of-goods limit governs a suit to recover a car purchase deficiency after repossession.

Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC · filed 2021-03-09

If the lawsuit would more closely relate to the sale portion, then a four-year statute of limitations would apply; otherwise, a six-year statute of limitations would. Compare Or. Rev. Stat. § 72.7250 (requiring claims of breach of contract for a sale of goods to be brought within four years), with id. § 12.080 (requiring other contract claims to be brought within six years). ... Given this, we have great confidence that the Oregon Supreme Court would hold the four-year statute of limitations would apply to a suit on Kaiser’s debt.

Section 12.080 gives six years to bring a breach-of-contract claim, beginning when the breach occurs.

MAT, Inc. v. American Tower Asset Sub, LLC · filed 2021-06-03

The statute of limitations on a claim for breach of contract is six years, and it begins to run at the time of contract breach.

Section 12.080(1) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a contract claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, even when the same conduct could support a tort claim.

Davis v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation · filed 2025-08-08(1)

Under the circumstances here, Plaintiffs breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing claim is proper, and the six-year statute of limitations under ORS 12.080(1) applies to Plaintiff's claim.

Section 12.080 gives breach-of-contract claims a six-year limitation period.

Fenimore · filed 2026-03-25

Furthermore, to the extent that the claim is based on the escrow charges, the Complaint alleges that the escrow charges were placed in March 2015, Compl. ¶ 18, which is more than six years before the commencement of this action and so beyond the statute of limitation for a breach of contract action. ORS 12.080.

Section 12.080(2) applies to a liability created by statute when the statute changes common-law liability enough to create an entirely new and distinct liability.

Hyatt Chalet Motels, Inc. v. Salem Building & Construction Trades Council · filed 1968-10-22(2)

The test of whether a right is “created by statute”, under ORS 12.-080(2), is whether such right so changed the liability imposed by common law as to create an entirely new and distinct liability.

Section 12.080(2) provides a six-year limitations period for liability created by statute, including damages actions under § 303 for secondary boycotts.

Hyatt Chalet Motels, Inc. v. Carpenters Local 1065 · filed 1970-07-29(2)

Contrary to the holding of the district court, the Unions failed to prove that a common law right to damages for secondary boycotts existed in Oregon prior to the Taft-Hartley Act (also known as the “Labor Management Relations Act”). ... As Hyatt points out, every statutory liability covers an “injury to the person or rights of another”. Acceptance of the Unions’ logic on this point would completely vitiate the 6-year statute.

Section 12.080(3) gives six years to bring a trespass action, but does not cover fire damage caused by negligence during a permitted use of the property without a wrongful intrusion.

Hawkins v. Barber · filed 1972-11-10(3)

Plaintiffs contend that their action was for trespass and therefore was governed by the six-year limitation period prescribed by ORS 12.080(3).... We may begin with the principle that trespass may result from the negligent conduct of the defendant. If defendant was conducting his business on plaintiffs’ land without consent, then a trespass action would lie. On the other hand, if defendant had consent to store hay in plaintiffs’ barn and the fire started as a result of defendant’s negligent conduct, the action of trespass would not lie.... There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that defendant had come upon the property wrongfully or that being there rightfully, he went beyond the scope of his privilege.

Section 12.080 sets a six-year limitations period for an action to collect a debt.

Matter of Estate of Culver · filed 1976-09-20

The applicable statute of limitations on an action for the debt is six years, ORS 12.080. More than six years passed between the first and second payments and between the second and third payments. Six years have not passed between the third payment and assertion of his claim.

Section 12.080(2)'s six-year limitation does not apply to a claim for double damages that constitutes a penalty or forfeiture.

Riddle v. Eugene Lodge No. 357 of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the United States · filed 1989-02-08(2)

Their complaints seek double damages under ORS 30.740, which provides for a penalty or forfeiture, see Mozorosky v. Hurlburt, 106 Or 274, 198 P 556, 211 P 893 (1923); therefore, on its face, ORS 12.080(2) does not apply.

Section 12.080(2) provides a six-year period for liabilities created by statute when no more specific limitations period applies.

S v. V. Sherwood School District · filed 2001-06-26(2)

First, the OTCA statute of limitations applies specifically to claims alleging breaches of statutory duty by school districts and other public bodies. By contrast, ORS § 12.080 is a general, “catchall” statute of limitations that applies broadly to any claim alleging a “liability created by statute” for which no other limitations period is provided.

Section 12.080’s six-year limitation covers contractual claims for unpaid regular wages but excludes claims for overtime or premium pay.

Kitchen v. WSCO Petroleum Corp. · filed 2007-01-29

Under Oregon law, actions “for overtime or premium pay or for penalties or liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime or premium pay shall be commenced within two years” (ORS 12.110(3)) and are specifically excluded from Oregon’s six-year statute of limitations for other contractual claims, such as failure to pay regular wages. ORS 12.080; Rowe v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 244 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.2001).

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year period for contract actions yields when another statute prescribes a different limitation period.

Wiederhorn v. Multnomah Athletic Club · filed 2007-10-10(1)

Finally, the limitations in both ORS 12.080(1) and ORS 12.110(1) are subject to ORS 12.010, which provides: ... Thus, the legislature expressly limited contract and tort claims where “a different limitation [is] prescribed by statute.” Here, ORS 65.167(4) — which unambiguously prescribes a one-year statute of limitations — is such a statute.

Section 12.080(2) sets a six-year limitations period for the claims at issue.

Communication Management Serv. v. Qwest Corp. · filed 2018-02-20(2)

We affirm the district court’s finding that Claims 10 and 11 accrued no later than December 31, 2004, because no conduct relevant to these claims took place after 2004. Accordingly, one year and forty-eight days remained on the six-year statute of limitations, Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.080(2), when Plaintiffs commenced NPCC I in the district court on November 13, 2009.

Section 12.080(1) sets a six-year limit for express or implied contract claims, which can serve as the analogous period when assessing laches on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims.

Hoag Living Trust Dated Feb. 4, 2013 v. Hoag · filed 2018-05-31(1)

Under ORS 12.080(1), the statute of limitations for claims based on an express or implied contract is six years.

Section 12.080(2) provides a six-year limitations period for statutory liabilities other than penalties or forfeitures, including liquidated damages under ORS § 652.615.

Brinkman v. Abm Onsite Servs. W., Inc. · filed 2019-04-23(2)

In contrast, ORS § 12.080(2) allows for a six-year statute of limitations for "[a]n action upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.110." ... After considering each of these factors, the Court finds that the $ 200 allowed by ORS § 652.615 is not a penalty and is instead an award of statutory liquidated damages. ... The six-year statute of limitations therefore applies.

Section 12.080(1) requires contract actions to be commenced within six years.

City of Portland v. Iheanacho · filed 2022-06-07(1)

Under Oregon law, contract actions must be commenced within six-years. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.080(1). ... Even allowing for a full year to finalize project costs, the City’s purported breaches related to construction costs and resultant personal loans, payment of developer fees, inspection requirements, tax abatements, and failure to remit Statement of Project Cost Savings accrued no later than January 2008 – more than eight years before the filing of this action.

Section 12.080’s six-year limitation governs a contract claim for services when the UCC does not apply.

Sublimity Harvest Foundation v. Bleacher Builders Incorporated · filed 2024-09-27

Plaintiff, meanwhile, argues that the six-year statute of limitations under ORS 12.080 applies and therefore their claim is not time-barred. ... As the predominant thrust of the contract is the provision of services, the UCC does not apply, and Plaintiff’s claim is not time-barred.

Section 12.080 gives a plaintiff six years from the breach to commence an action related to contract.

Jason v. Adobe, Inc. · filed 2025-01-10

An action related to contract must be commenced within six years of the date of the breach of contract.

Section 12.080(2) gives insurers six years to bring statutory contribution claims under ORS 465.480(4), with accrual when they knew or reasonably should have known the elements of their claims.

National Surety Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company · filed 2022-08-25(2)

The Court finds ORS 12.080(2)’s six-year statute of limitations applies to statutory contribution claims brought under ORS 465.480(4). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s statutory contribution claims accrued when it knew or reasonably should have known of the elements of its claims.

ORS 12.080 gives employees six years to bring an action for unpaid wages owed for shortened meal periods.

Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co. · filed 2025-11-26(2)

Because we conclude that an employer must pay an employee wages for a meal period lasting fewer than 30 minutes, an action to recover those unpaid wages is subject to a six-year statute of limitations under ORS 12.080.

Section 12.080(1)'s six-year limit bars an amended claim filed after the period when the amendment substitutes a different cause of action.

Credit Bureaus Adjustment Department, Inc. v. Allen · filed 1968-11-27(1)

The six-year statute of limitations (ORS 12.080(1)) had expired between the two filings. ... In the instant case one allegation is for personal services, the other for cows sold and delivered—radically different subjects. ... Patently, the causes of action alleged are different. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Section 12.080’s six-year limitations period does not govern SEC Rule 10b-5 claims brought in Oregon.

Hoffert v. E. F. Hinkle & Co. · filed 1972-08-18(1)

First, I take up plaintiffs’ contention that the six-year limitation, for actions brought on implied contract or for actions upon a liability created by statute, provided by ORS 12.080, should apply. ... The opinion in Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Investments, Inc., 440 F.2d 912, 914-915 (9th Cir. 1971), reaffirmed the earlier decision of Fratt v. Robinson, 203 F.2d 627, 634-635 (9th Cir. 1953), which had rejected a similar argument under Washington law. In view of these cases, this contention by plaintiffs lacks merit.

Section 12.080’s six-year limitation does not apply to Rule 10b-5 actions brought in Oregon; the Oregon general fraud statute supplies the limitation period.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,408 Charles E. Williams v. James N. Sinclair, Dan R. Carlson and Frank Yazzolino v. James N. Sinc · filed 1976-03-29

Appellants contend that the appropriate statute of limitations for Rule 10b-5 actions brought in Oregon is the six year period provided for in ORS 12.080. ... The trial court correctly applied the Oregon general fraud statute as the statute of limitations applicable to Rule 10b-5 actions.

Section 12.080(2)’s six-year limit for actions created by statute does not govern § 1983 actions after Oregon made a two-year limit applicable to them.

Kosikowski v. Bourne · filed 1981-09-28(2)

Kosikowski and Morse contend that we are bound by our decision in Clark holding that in § 1983 actions the six-year statute of limitations applicable to causes of action created by statute (Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.080(2)) rather than the general tort two-year limitation (Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1)) applies. *108This argument would have been sound if the state legislative assembly had not intervened. ... We hold that Or.Rev.Stat. § 30.275(3) is the Oregon statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 actions.

Section 12.080(2)'s six-year period for actions created by statute does not govern § 1983 actions when Oregon has expressly assigned those actions a different limitations period.

Kosikowski v. Bourne · filed 1981-12-02(2)

Kosikowski and Morse contend that we are bound by our decision in Clark holding that in § 1983 actions the six-year statute of limitations applicable to causes of action created by statute (Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.080(2)) rather than the general tort two-year limitation (Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1)) applies. This argument would have been sound if the state legislative assembly had not intervened.

Section 12.080’s six-year periods for contract actions and liabilities created by statute do not supply the limitations period for a § 301 challenge to a labor arbitration award.

Local 1020 Of The United Brotherhood Of Carpenters And Joiners Of America v. Fmc Corporation · filed 1981-10-13(1), (2)

Our only alternative, under Oregon law, would be to borrow the 6 year statute under ORS 12.080(1) (an action on a contract) or ORS 12.080(2), (an action on liability created by statute), the contract action having been specifically rejected in Mitchell in the absence of a definitive statute fixing 6 years for challenges to awards in arbitration proceedings. Unlike Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981), Carpenters' claim is not related to a statute designed to provide minimum substantive guarantees to individual workers as under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Oregon statute providing for an action on liability created by statute is inapposite.

Section 12.080(2) supplies a six-year limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Jeanette J. PLUMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee · filed 1981-12-03(2)

The district court therefore erred ... in applying the two year period and should apply the six year period in Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.080(2) on remand.

Section 12.080 provides a six-year limitation period for contract actions, which applies by analogy to actions under a collective bargaining agreement.

Abbott v. Goodwin · filed 1991-01-09

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in applying the six-year limitation period in ORS 12.080, the general Statute of Limitations applicable to contract actions. ... We conclude, as did the trial court, that the general statute for actions on contracts is the most appropriate limitation for actions under a collective bargaining agreement. That period is neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with national labor policy.

Section 12.080(1) provides a six-year limitations period for contract claims that applies to ERISA benefits claims arising in Oregon.

Chuck v. Hewlett Packard Co. · filed 2006-07-25(1)

In this case, which arose in Oregon, there is no dispute that the most analogous state statute is Oregon’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.080(1).

Section 12.080(1) provides a six-year limit for contract actions, which the court applied to an ERISA pension benefits claim.

Frances v. Gucci America, Inc. · filed 2008-02-20(1)

Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.080(1) provides “an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied ... shall be commenced within six years.” Although Oregon’s six-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiffs ERISA claims, federal law determines when an ERISA cause of action accrues.

An action framed as a contract claim does not receive ORS 12.080’s six-year limitations period when its predominant character is tort.

Lindemeier v. Walker · filed 1975-08-07

Plaintiff contended that he alleged a cause of action in contract and that the six-year statute of limitations, ORS 12.080, applied. We held that the gravamen of plaintiff’s cause of action sounded in tort and the two-year statute applied. ... We see no reason to depart from our decisions in Dowell and Bales, and we find that the plaintiffs’ cause of action was controlled by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions, OES 12.110, and therefore the trial court acted properly in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 12.080’s six-year period for contract actions does not apply to a claim that an architect failed to supervise construction and make inspections when the claim is governed by the two-year period for injuries to rights not arising on contract.

Ashley v. Fletcher · filed 1976-06-24

Plaintiff contends the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breaches of contract (ORS 12.080) should apply. ... Its decision was in accord with our decision in Bales for Food v. Poole, 246 Or 253, 424 P2d 892 (1967), in which we . examined and rejected a contention similar to that now advanced by plaintiff. ... Affirmed.

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year period applies when a claim rests on a specific contractual duty, even if the alleged breach involves fraud or deceit.

Erickson Hardwood Co. v. North Pacific Lumber Co. · filed 1984-10-31(1)

Even though the claimed breach sounds in fraud or deceit, i.e., in tort, we agree with the trial court that the action was in contract. It was timely filed. ORS 12.080.

The six-year limit for contract actions can apply to a claim against a professional; a defendant asserting the two-year tort limit must prove that the alleged contract adds nothing to the defendant’s general duty of care.

Stromme v. Nasburg and Co. · filed 1986-06-18

Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense; it was defendant’s burden to substantiate that defense by proving that the alleged contract added nothing to the general duty that defendant would have had if there had been no contract.

Section 12.080's six-year limitation may apply when a claim rests on a specific contractual obligation; factual disputes over that obligation can preclude summary judgment.

R.A. Hatch Co. v. American Insurance · filed 1990-01-16

On the present record, the court cannot say as a matter of law that the contract claim must be treated as a tort claim for purposes of the statute of limitations. Therefore, genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the claim for breach of contract.

Section 12.080(1) allows six years for a claim based on a specifically promised contractual duty; an alleged breach of a general duty of care does not qualify.

South Lake Center Partnership v. Waker Associates, Inc. · filed 1994-08-10(1)

Applying the Securities-Intermountain methodology, we have carefully reviewed Waker’s contract to determine whether each of these particulars is derived from a contractually specified duty of performance. We conclude that allegations (1) and (4) sound in contract, and allegations (2) and (3) do not.

Section 12.080’s six-year limitation for contract actions does not govern claims grounded in fraud, even when they seek restitution.

McCraw v. Stapp · filed 1986-10-29

Plaintiffs assert that the six-year Statute of Limitations, applicable to actions on contracts, ORS 12.080, governs their second and third claims for “restitution.” We disagree. ORS 12.110(1) applies.

Section 12.080(1) allows six years to bring a claim for breach of a specific agreement about medical treatment, even when the complaint also alleges tort damages.

Dauven v. St. Vincent Hospital & Medical Center · filed 1994-10-19(1)

If the complaint sounds in tort, the statute of limitations is two years and the complaint was correctly dismissed; if it sounds in contract, the statute of limitations is six years, and the dismissal was incorrect. ... We conclude that plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim for breach of contract. It was error for the trial court to dismiss counts one and two of their second amended complaint.

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limitation for contract actions does not apply when the predominant characteristics of the claims sound in tort.

Htaike v. Sein · filed 2015-02-25(1)

We conclude that the statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) applies to plaintiffs’ claims. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the predominant characteristics of plaintiffs’ claims sound in tort and that ORS 12.110(1) applies.

Section 12.080(4) gives six years from accrual to bring a conversion action and supplies the analogous period for determining who bears the burden of disproving laches.

Parker v. Richards · filed 1979-11-26(4)

The analogous statute of limitations in this case for the transfer of the personal property from the corporation to Leona G. Bryant is ORS 12.080(4) providing that actions for conversion must be brought within six years after the accrual of the cause of action. The analogous statute of limitations for the recovery of real property is ORS 12.050 providing that the action must be brought within ten years. Therefore, the burden was on the plaintiff to plead and prove that laches did not exist. The plaintiff failed to carry this burden.

Section 12.080’s six-year period for breach of contract claims is not the analogous limit for a laches defense to enforcement of a marital settlement agreement incorporated into a judgment.

Matter of Marriage of Menard · filed 2002-03-13

In this case, husband asserts that the analogous statute of limitations is the six-year time limit for breach of contract claims, ORS 12.080, and that wife delayed beyond that time: She discovered husband’s VSI in late December 1992 and did not serve husband with notice that she was claiming a share of it until April 2000. ... Wife’s latter position is correct. The 1989 marital settlement agreement was incorporated into the amended judgment of dissolution. ... Thus, wife’s action in this case is most analogous to an action on a judgment; the time period we use as a gauge for determining the reasonableness of her delay is 10 years.

Section 12.080(3) provides a six-year limit for actions seeking damages for injury to a purchaser’s interest in real property.

Beveridge v. King · filed 1982-04-06(3)

An action for damages for injury to any interest of plaintiffs in the real property which was the subject of this sale is “especially enumerated” in ORS 12.080(3).

Section 12.080(3)’s six-year limit does not apply when a negligent inspection causes only economic loss and does not injure the property or the plaintiff’s interest in it.

Morrison v. Ardee Pest Control, Inc. · filed 1983-04-13(3)

However, in view of the fact that the court entertained the idea that ORS 12.080(3) might be applicable, plaintiffs contend that that statute applies here. ... Neither was there an injury to plaintiffs’ interest in the property. The injury caused by the allegedly negligent inspection was to plaintiffs’ pocketbook. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs’ negligence count is barred by ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.080(3) provides a six-year limit for actions alleging injury to an interest in real property, including the injuries alleged from defective architectural services.

Taylor v. Settecase · filed 1984-07-18(3)

Although the court’s rationale in Beveridge was alternatively grounded in ORS 12.080(1) and 12.080(3), we hold that in the present case the allegations of injuries are those to “any interest of another in real property * * ORS 12.080(3).

ORS 12.080(3) gives six years to bring an action for injury to an interest in real property, including a claim over a leaky roof in a newly constructed office building.

Sutter v. Bingham Construction, Inc. · filed 1986-08-27(3)

We do not understand how plaintiffs’ interest in receiving a building without a leaky roof is distinguishable. ... We hold that this action was timely commenced under ORS 12.080(3).

Section 12.080 limits recovery of fair rental value to the six years before the case was filed and the period thereafter.

Rise v. Steckel · filed 1982-10-13

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the fair rental value of the property for the six years prior to the filing of the case and to date. ORS 12.080.

Section 12.080(3) allows six years to bring an inverse condemnation action for interference with an interest in real property.

Suess Builders Co. v. City of Beaverton · filed 1982-12-29(3)

Each of these subsections leads to a six-year period of limitation. Moreover, that would be the period under ORS 12.080(4) when property taken is characterized as “personal” instead of “real” property. We think that ORS 12.080(3) covers this case.

The six-year limitation in ORS 12.080(3) does not govern slander-of-title actions.

Diamond v. Huffman · filed 1983-08-10(3)

Although, arguably, the emphasized language is broad enough to include plaintiffs claim, it was added to ORS 12.080(3) in 1973 (Or Laws 1973, ch 363, § 1), and three years later the court held in Shenefield that ORS 12.120(2) governs such actions. We are bound by that decision.

Section 12.080(3) gives a property owner six years to bring an inverse condemnation claim based on physical occupation, measured from when the occupation begins.

Foster Group, Inc. v. City of Elgin · filed 2014-07-30(3)

The parties agree that the inverse condemnation claim is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. ... To the contrary, the statute of limitations on plaintiffs takings claim, based on the city’s physical occupation of property, began to run when that physical occupation began. Plaintiffs inverse condemnation claim was timely.

Section 12.080(3) gives six years to bring construction-defect claims alleging injury to an interest in real property, subject to a discovery rule.

Riverview Condominium Ass'n v. Cypress Ventures, Inc. · filed 2014-10-29(3)

Accordingly, we follow Beveridge, Taylor, and Sutter, and hold that the Association’s construction-defect claims allege injury to the “interest of another in real property” and are therefore governed by the six-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.080(3).

Section 12.080(3) provides a six-year limitation period for injury to an interest in real property, but does not cover damage to the property itself.

Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc. · filed 2016-06-16(3)

In short, an analysis of the text of ORS 12.080(3) strongly suggests that plaintiffs’ claim in this case for negligent construction, resulting in damage to their home, does not constitute a claim for injury to “interest * * * in real property”; rather, it constitutes a claim for damage to the property itself, subject to the two-year limitations period in ORS 12.110.

Section 12.080(3)’s six-year period applies to injury to a buyer’s equitable interest in real property, but not when the buyer relinquishes that interest and no property interest is injured.

Hunt v. Goffman · filed 2025-09-04(3)

Thus, the trial court did not err in concluding that ORS 12.080(3) did not apply, because defendants did not interfere with plaintiff’s property interest.

Section 12.080(3)'s six-year limitation applies to injury to an interest in real property; underpayment of insurance benefits does not qualify.

Bowers · filed 2026-05-06(3)

The six-year limitations period set forth in ORS 12.080(3) does not apply because the action is not one for interference with or injury to a property interest.

ORS 12.080(3) requires an inverse condemnation claim based on a physical occupation of property to be filed within six years.

Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority · filed 2021-09-01(3)

Under the plain text of ORS 12.080(3), we conclude that an action based on a physical occupation tak- ing, which is an action for injury to an interest of another in real property, must be commenced within six years.

Section 12.080(3) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a fraud claim that alleges interference with a security interest in a deed of trust, even without physical damage to the property.

Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc. · filed 2021-09-22(3)

We conclude that plaintiffs presented a claim for “interference with or injury to any interest of another in real property” subject to the six-year limitations period in ORS 12.080(3).

ORS 12.080(3) gives physical occupation inverse condemnation claims a six-year limitations period that begins when the occupation occurs.

Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority · filed 2024-05-23(3)

For the reasons explained above, we conclude that plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim is subject to the six-year limitations period set out in ORS 12.080(3), that the limitations period began to run when defendant had installed the sewer lines, and that, because plaintiffs’ claim was not filed within the limitations period, it is time barred.

The six-year limit for conversion and replevin claims begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know the elements of the claim.

Rice v. Rabb · filed 2014-01-30(4)

We conclude, following the reasoning of Berry, that a discovery rule applies to ORS 12.080(4) because that stat- ute falls under the purview of ORS 12.010.

ORS 12.080(3)’s six-year period for injury to an interest in real property begins when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known the elements of the claim.

Tavtigian-Coburn v. All Star Custom Homes, LLC · filed 2014-10-08(3)

Like ORS 12.080(4), ORS 12.080(3) does not prescribe a different limitation on commencement of claims; thus, under ORS 12.010, plaintiffs’ negligence and nuisance claims accrued when they knew or reasonably should have known of the elements of those claims.

Section 12.080(3) sets a six-year limit for claims alleging injury to an interest in real property, with the period beginning when the injury is discovered or reasonably should be discovered.

Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc. · filed 2014-12-10(3)

In light of those decisions, we conclude that ORS 12.080(3) governs and is triggered by discovery of a claim.

Section 12.080(3) gives waste claims a six-year limitations period that runs under the discovery rule.

Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLC · filed 2016-03-25(3)

Walker Place’s claim for waste is subject to ORS § 12.080(3), and the discovery rule applies. ... Therefore,- the six-year statute of limitations on Walker Place’s statutory waste claim has not yet expired under the discovery rule.

Section 12.080(1) gives a party six years from breach to bring a contract claim; the discovery rule does not apply.

Romero v. Amburn · filed 2022-12-29(1)

Absent clearer guidance from the Supreme Court, we stand by existing precedent that ORS 12.080(1) is not subject to the discovery rule.

Section 12.080(1)’s six-year limit for contract actions does not apply to a petition to confirm an arbitration award.

Myhre v. Potter · filed 2022-03-16(1)

In this case, the petition to confirm an arbitration award does not commence an action to make certain an unresolved contract claim under ORS 12.080(1).