Chafin v. Wisconsin Province Society of Jesus, 301 Neb. 94

In 1969 Kathleen Chafin gave birth; her child was placed for adoption through the Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus and the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha. Chafin alleges the adoption was fraudulent and done without her consent.
Chafin claims Church actors coerced her into a residence for unmarried pregnant women, and that her baby was taken immediately after birth.
Chafin alleges the Church concealed the fraudulent adoption and related evidence from 1969 until she reunited with her son in 2015.
The Church moved to dismiss Chafin’s amended complaint as time-barred by Nebraska’s 4-year statute of limitations; the district court granted the motion with prejudice.
On appeal Chafin argued only that the Church’s fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations until 2015.
The Nebraska Supreme Court treated allegations in the complaint as true but held Chafin’s fraudulent-concealment allegations were conclusory and failed to plead the who, what, when, where, and how with particularity required to toll the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chafin’s claims are time-barred	Chafin: the Church fraudulently concealed the adoption until 2015, tolling the limitations period	Church: statute began in 1969 when Chafin knew of her injury; no tolling	Held: claims are time-barred because fraudulent-concealment allegations lack particularity
Whether fraudulent-concealment tolling must be pleaded with particularity	Chafin: her amended complaint sufficiently alleged concealment continuing to 2015	Church: heightened pleading under the rule requires specific factual detail	Held: court adopts particularity requirement for fraudulent concealment (who, what, when, where, how)
Whether Chafin alleged facts showing due diligence / prevented discovery	Chafin: concealment prevented discovery until 2015	Church: plaintiff had facts in 1969 to put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry	Held: Chafin failed to plead how concealment prevented discovery or her due diligence
Whether dismissal at motion-to-dismiss stage was appropriate	Chafin: allegations suffice to survive dismissal	Church: complaint on its face is time-barred absent particularized tolling facts	Held: dismissal affirmed; pleading deficiencies justified dismissal with prejudice

In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 2014) (discovery rule for accrual of fraud claims)
Carlson v. Allianz Versicherungs-AG, 287 Neb. 628, 844 N.W.2d 264 (Neb. 2014) (fraud accrual and discovery standards)
Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp., 283 Neb. 428, 811 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2012) (fraudulent concealment doctrine elements)
Andres v. McNeil Co., 270 Neb. 733, 707 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 2005) (discovery and due diligence in tolling)
Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) (pleading fraud and fraudulent concealment with particularity)
DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990) (illustration of the who/what/when/where/how standard for fraud pleading)