Pettinger v. Carroll
912 N.W.2d 305
| N.D. | 2018Background
- Robert Pettinger alleged he gave his brother James approximately $110,000 in the late 1980s–early 1990s to invest and the funds were never returned.
- Pettinger repeatedly asked for return of the funds over many years (multiple contacts in 2003 and a “serious conversation” in 2006–2007), but James refused or ignored the requests.
- After James died, Pettinger submitted a claim against James’s estate, which was denied; Pettinger then sued the personal representative in August 2016 seeking return of the funds plus interest.
- The Estate moved for summary judgment, arguing the six‑year statute of limitations had run because Pettinger knew or should have known of the claim no later than 2007.
- Pettinger asserted for the first time in response to summary judgment that an implied trust delayed accrual until the Estate repudiated the trust in 2016. He had not pled an implied trust or sought to amend his complaint.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding Pettinger’s claim accrued by 2007 and was barred; the court also declined to consider an implied‑trust claim that had not been pled. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the statute of limitations begin to run for recovery of personal property? | Accrual was delayed because James never expressly repudiated intent to return the funds; Pettinger did not know a claim existed until the estate denied his claim in 2016. | A reasonable person knew of the wrongful withholding no later than 2007 after repeated requests and refusals; limitations began then. | Court held accrual occurred by 2007 under the discovery rule; six‑year limitations barred the 2016 suit. |
| Did the discovery rule postpone accrual until later (subjective uncertainty/no explicit refusal)? | The discovery rule should be applied to Pettinger’s subjective knowledge; lack of explicit statement by James delayed accrual. | Discovery rule is objective: when facts would put a reasonable person on notice; objective notice occurred by 2007. | Court applied objective discovery rule and found only one reasonable conclusion: accrual by 2007. |
| Did an implied trust exist that would toll or delay the limitations period? | An implied trust arose when funds were given to James; trust was not repudiated until the estate denied the claim in 2016, so limitations were tolled. | No implied trust was pled or supported by evidence; issue was raised for first time on summary judgment. | Court refused to consider implied‑trust claim on appeal because it was not pled or adequately raised below. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate given the facts? | Material facts remained in dispute about when Pettinger knew a claim existed. | Facts were undisputed and only legal significance remained; reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion. | Court concluded only one reasonable conclusion exists from undisputed facts and affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.R. Audit Servs., Inc. v. Tuttle, 891 N.W.2d 757 (N.D. 2017) (summary judgment standard and when questions of fact become questions of law)
- Larson v. Midland Hosp. Supply, Inc., 891 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 2016) (discovery rule delays accrual until plaintiff knew or should have known of wrongful act)
- Wells v. First Am. Bank W., 598 N.W.2d 834 (N.D. 1999) (objective knowledge standard for discovery rule)
- Darby v. Swenson Inc., 767 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 2009) (issues not raised and pleaded below are forfeited on appeal)