Engstrom v. Whitebirch, Inc., 931 N.W.2d 786

Decedent (Debra) allegedly added son Daniel Engstrom as joint owner of a Brainerd-area timeshare via documents Whitebirch supplied; Whitebirch later sent Engstrom letters asserting he owned the timeshare and demanding past-due maintenance fees or a quitclaim deed.
Engstrom disputed ownership, declined to sign a quitclaim or pay, and alleges Whitebirch threatened collection and legal action.
Engstrom hired and paid an attorney to investigate title and the validity of the notarization; the attorney discovered the deed was unrecorded and bore a revoked notary stamp similar to many other deeds.
Engstrom sued under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, invoking the private attorney general statute (Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a) to recover damages including investigation and attorney fees.
The district court and court of appeals dismissed, holding Engstrom failed to plead an "injury" because he never paid Whitebirch or executed the deed; he merely refused the ultimatum.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that pecuniary loss in the form of attorney fees paid to investigate and respond to fraudulent demands qualifies as an "injury" under the private attorney general statute, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paying an attorney to investigate allegedly fraudulent demands satisfies the private attorney general statute's requirement that the plaintiff be "injured"	Engstrom: paying counsel to determine liability in response to fraudulent demands is a pecuniary loss and thus an injury	Whitebirch: injury must be independent of recoverable attorney fees; allowing pre-suit fees as the required injury would conflate recoverable relief with the injury element	Court: attorney fees paid to investigate/respond to the fraudulent demand are a pecuniary loss and constitute an "injury" under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, 851 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 2014) (standard for accepting complaint facts and inferences on motion to dismiss)
Zutz v. Nelson, 788 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2010) (review standard for whether complaint states a legally sufficient claim)
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 911 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 2018) (use of dictionary definitions in statutory interpretation)
Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000) (private-attorney-general suits must also show the action benefits the public)