[brief] THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED COUNT TWO OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING CONSUMER FRAUD AND ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED ITS BASIS FOR DISMISSAL.  The Trial Court correctly dismissed Count Two of the Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging Consumer Fraud as to the Developer in connection with the Leasing of [...] and adequately explained its basis for dismissal.  A claim for fraud accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of its existence.  Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 425 (3rd Cir. 1999).  Plaintiff must also be aware of an injury and a causal relationship between the injury and an actor.  Id.  “When the gist of the action is fraud concealed from the plaintiff, the statute begins to run on discovery of the wrong or of facts that reasonably should lead the plaintiff to inquire into the fraud. ”  *Id.* (quoting *Lopez*, 62 *N.J.* 267, 300 (1973)).  If the allegations, taken as true, allege facts sufficient to toll the statute of limitations, it must survive a motion to dismiss.  *Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc.*, 181 F.3d at 425.  As provided in full above, *N.J.S.A.* 2A:14-1(c) specifically requires that the statute of limitations for actions filed by a planned real estate development association against a developer “shall be tolled until an election is held and the owners comprise a majority of the board. ”  Here, the Developers relinquished control of the Board to the owners when 75% of the units were conveyed in approximately 1987, over three decades ago.  As such, the Association’s time period for filing a claim for fraud has long since expired.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted even if equitable principles under the “discovery rule” are applied to the statute.  In this case, in approximately 1987, the Association transitioned control from the developer to the unit owners.  Thus, the statute has clearly run.  Furthermore, as Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state when the alleged fraud was discovered which would toll the statute of limitations, the Complaint must be dismissed.  See *The Palisades At Fort Lee Condo. Ass'n, Inc.*, 230 *N.J.* at 454 (citing Lopez, 62 N.J. at 300).  Further, Plaintiff fails to provide any reasons which explain how [...] was fraudulently concealed to it, let alone why its reasonable diligence failed to discover the alleged injury.  Rather, the Complaint operates within its own circular logic, namely, that “Common Elements” and “Units” are mutually exclusive and, therefore, the Developer was required to relinquish title for [...] to the Association because of its designation under Paragraph 8(e) of the Master Deed.  As a matter of fact, ownership of each unit included a part of the common elements.  Indeed, [...] explicitly included an .81% interest in the common elements.  (See Pa 97).  Moreover, the owner-controlled Association maintained the designation.  Furthermore, throughout the course of the relevant events, the Association was represented by counsel.  It also engaged a Title Insurance Company to establish chain of title.  At no time did Plaintiff’s counsel or title insurer indicate that title to [...] was being fraudulently conveyed as a “Unit” rather than a “Common Element” as Plaintiff now argues.  In addition, Paragraph 8(e) of the Master Deed expressly provides for the Association to purchase one or more units for building personnel.  See Pa 148-149.  The Trial Court was correct in dismissing Plaintiff’s Consumer Fraud claim against the Defendant, as the Court correctly concluded the 1983 Master Deed both authorized and contemplated the sale of the Unit to the Association.