Solberg v. McKennett, 956 N.W.2d 767

Glenn Solberg is the son of Lillian (Solberg) Nelson; Lyle Nelson (her husband) died in 2012 and McKennett was the attorney for the personal representative of Lyle Nelson’s estate.
In June 2013 Solberg filed a petition in Nelson’s probate asserting entitlement under his mother’s will to 100 mineral acres and an option to purchase property; the district court dismissed that claim and this Court affirmed.
In April 2020 Solberg sued McKennett for fraud and injury to person, alleging McKennett misled him during the probate, failed to use evidence Solberg provided, had conflicts of interest, and improperly caused dismissal of Solberg’s claim; Solberg sought $400,000.
McKennett moved to dismiss (arguing inadequate fraud pleading and that claims were time‑barred); the district court converted the motion to one for summary judgment and dismissed the case as barred by the six‑year statute of limitations because Solberg was on notice before April 7, 2014.
Solberg argued the limitations period began in 2020; the district court and this Court held he had knowledge of facts putting him on inquiry before April 7, 2014, so the claims were time‑barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper	Solberg argued accrual occurred in 2020 so claims timely	McKennett argued claims arose before April 7, 2014 and are barred	Affirmed summary judgment; no genuine issue because claims time‑barred
When the statute of limitations accrued (discovery rule)	Accrual delayed until 2020; Solberg lacked full awareness earlier	Solberg had knowledge or facts that would prompt inquiry before April 7, 2014	Accrual occurs when plaintiff knew or should have known; Solberg was on notice before April 7, 2014
Pleading sufficiency for fraud (N.D.R.Civ.P. 9(b))	Complaint need not be exact; facts and prior filings show allegations	Complaint fails to state circumstances of fraud with particularity	Court applied Rule 9(b) standards; although particulars were lacking, statute‑of‑limitations ruling disposed of case
Potential legal malpractice characterization and limitations	(No malpractice claim pleaded)	If construed as malpractice, a two‑year limitations period would apply	Court noted malpractice claims (if asserted) would be subject to a two‑year limitation and thus also problematic

Aftem Lake Dev., Inc. v. Riverview Homeowners Ass’n, 938 N.W.2d 159 (summary judgment standard and review)
Lakeview Excavating, Inc. v. Dickey County, 940 N.W.2d 657 (discovery rule; accrual when plaintiff knew or should have known)
Ayling v. Sens, 926 N.W.2d 147 (statute‑of‑limitations dismissal via summary judgment)
Bullinger Enterprises, LLLP v. Dahl, 940 N.W.2d 630 (six‑year limitations for fraud and injury to person)
Kuntz v. State, 923 N.W.2d 513 (distinguishing fraud and deceit and pleading specificity)
Estate of Nelson, 910 N.W.2d 856 (prior appellate disposition of Solberg’s probate claim)
Erickson v. Brown, 747 N.W.2d 34 (discussion distinguishing remedies for fraud vs deceit)