Chafin v. Wis. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus, 917 N.W.2d 821

In 1969 Chafin gave birth; her child was placed for adoption through the Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus and the Archdiocese of Omaha; Chafin alleges the adoption was fraudulent and without her consent.
Chafin claims the Church forcibly placed her in a home for unmarried pregnant women, took the baby at birth, and arranged an illegal, for-profit adoption scheme.
She alleges the Church concealed the adoption fraud and destroyed or suppressed evidence, preventing her from discovering the misconduct until she reunited with her son in 2015.
The Church moved to dismiss under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (four-year statute of limitations); the district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead facts tolling the statute.
On appeal Chafin argued only that fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period; the court reviewed de novo and assumed complaint allegations true for pleading purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations	Chafin: Church concealed material facts and evidence from 1969 until 2015, preventing discovery and tolling the limitations period	Church: Claims are time-barred because Chafin knew of her injury in 1969; her concealment allegations are conclusory and legally insufficient	The court held that fraudulent-concealment allegations must be pleaded with particularity; Chafin pleaded only legal conclusions (no who/what/when/where/how), so tolling was not established and the claims are time-barred

Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) (fraud and fraudulent-concealment allegations must be pleaded with particularity)
DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990) (discusses the particularity requirement for pleading fraud)
Andres v. McNeil Co., 270 Neb. 733 (Neb. 2005) (application of the discovery rule to fraud claims)
Lindner v. Kindig, 285 Neb. 386 (Neb. 2013) (statute of limitations and discovery principles)
Ichtertz v. Orthopaedic Specialists of Neb., 273 Neb. 466 (Neb. 2007) (interpretation of Nebraska pleading rules)