Podrygula v. Bray
2014 ND 226
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Podrygula and Psychological Services sued Angela and William Bray for fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from Angela Bray's employment (2000–2006).
- Angela Bray allegedly diverted money; William Bray allegedly aided and concealed the wrongdoing.
- On Oct 4, 2006, Podrygula reported suspicions to law enforcement; Angela Bray was later charged (2007) and convicted, with restitution paid in full.
- District court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as untimely and non-pleaded with particularity; court treated record as showing discovery date of Oct 4, 2006.
- Court held the six-year statute of limitations (NDCC 28-01-16) ran from Oct 4, 2006 to Oct 4, 2012, and service on Oct 6, 2013 commenced suit beyond the limitations period; dismissal without prejudice; on appeal, the court treated the matter as summary judgment.
- Majority affirmance is with modification to dismissal with prejudice; Crothers, J., specially concurs regarding fraud vs deceit distinction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the limitations period begin for fraud claims? | Podrygula argues later discovery extends accrual. | Brays argue discovery rule applies from act of fraud and later events. | Discovery date Oct 4, 2006 governs; accrual began then. |
| Is dismissal without prejudice a final, appealable order here? | Dismissal without prejudice forecloses later suit only if time-barred. | Such dismissals are not final, generally; but can be final when statute of limitations has run. | dismissal without prejudice is final and appealable where statute has run; here it did. |
| Did the district court properly apply the discovery rule to begin accrual? | Discovery rule should not apply to preclude early accrual due to deceit. | Alerting law enforcement constitutes actual knowledge triggering accrual. | No genuine issue; alert to authorities constitutes actual knowledge triggering accrual. |
| Was there error in concluding the action was untimely and in denying attorney fees? | A timely claim should be permitted; fees may be warranted if frivolous. | No finding of frivolousness; no fee award justified. | Statute barred; no frivolousness finding; no attorney fees on appeal. |
| Is Podrygula’s appeal frivolous? | The appeal is not frivolous; no fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Livingood v. Meece, 477 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 1991) (treat motion to dismiss with outside evidence as summary judgment; proper procedure)
- Wishnatsky v. Huey, 1997 ND 35 (N.D. 1997) (outside-pleadings conversion to summary judgment)
- Winer v. Penny Enters., Inc., 2004 ND 21 (N.D. 2004) (appealability of dismissal without prejudice)
- Sanderson v. Walsh County, 2006 ND 83 (N.D. 2006) (dismissal-with-prejudice when limitations run may be appealable)
- Jones v. Barnett, 2000 ND 207 (N.D. 2000) (discovery concept: notice suffices to trigger inquiry)
- Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co., 2001 ND 154 (N.D. 2001) (discovery rule objective standard for knowledge)
- Erickson v. Scotsman, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 535 (N.D. 1990) (knowledge of injury and rights from facts; full extent not required)
- Dunford v. Tryhus, 2009 ND 212 (N.D. 2009) (limits of discovery rule novice)
- Erickson v. Brown, 2008 ND 57 (N.D. 2008) (fraud vs deceit distinction noted by concurrence)