Bullinger Enterprises v. Dahl, 940 N.W.2d 630

In 2001 Bullinger Enterprises (Bullinger) and Howard and Brian Dahl (the Dahls) acquired interests in Wil‑Rich; later Wil‑Rich stock was exchanged into Amity to facilitate a joint venture with AGCO.
Valuations used in negotiations allocated $20M to Wil‑Rich; Amity and AGCO formed a joint venture in which AGCO bought 50% of Wil‑Rich for $30M.
By January–March 2012 Bullinger questioned the pro forma financials for the air drill seeder business, requested communications between Amity and AGCO, and received a March 14, 2012 email from Howard Dahl stating Bullinger agreed to the $20M Wil‑Rich valuation.
In July 2018 Bullinger Enterprises sued the Dahls for breach of fiduciary duty and deceit, alleging misrepresentations about AGCO’s valuation led to an unfair allocation of Amity ownership.
The Dahls moved for summary judgment asserting the claims were time‑barred; the district court held Bullinger had inquiry notice no later than March 14, 2012 and granted summary judgment under N.D.C.C. § 28‑01‑16(6).
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, concluding Bullinger’s claims accrued by March 14, 2012 and the July 2018 suit was outside the six‑year limitations period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bullinger's fraud/deceit/fiduciary claims accrued within the six‑year statute under the discovery rule	Fiduciary relationship and the parties' communications did not put Bullinger on inquiry notice; therefore accrual occurred later (tolling or delayed discovery).	Bullinger had inquiry notice by Jan–Mar 2012 (pro‑forma performance issues, request for AGCO communications, March 14 email asserting Bullinger agreed to $20M), so claims accrued by Mar 14, 2012.	Court: Objective inquiry‑notice standard met; accrual occurred no later than Mar 14, 2012; suit filed July 2018 barred by six‑year statute.

Broten v. Carter, 935 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 2019) (summary judgment standard and de novo review on legal questions)
Klein v. Sletto, 889 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 2017) (discovery rule accrual uses an objective knowledge standard)
Larson v. Midland Hosp. Supply, Inc., 891 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 2016) (inquiry notice is equivalent to knowledge and imposes a duty to promptly investigate legal rights)
Bjorgen v. Kinsey, 466 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1991) (fraud and deceit actions governed by § 28‑01‑16(6))
Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co., 632 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 2001) (articulation of the discovery rule for accrual)