Opinion ID: 1998443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statute of Limitations for Finstrom's Breach of Duty of Diligence Claim

Text: With respect to Finstrom's third claim alleging that the Bank breached its duty to diligently market the gravel, [t]he party moving for a summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue as to the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to judgment as a matter of law. Titus v. Titus, 154 N.W.2d 391, 395 (N.D.1967). From the record before us we are unable to determine how the trial court concluded that Finstrom's claim should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. In the posture in which the case has been presented to us with regard to the amended complaint, we are ... `unconvinced that summary judgment was properly entered' dismissing the claim[ ] raised in the amended complaint. Herzog v. Yuill, 399 N.W.2d 287, 292 (N.D.1987) (quoting Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 671, 92 S.Ct. 1232, 1234, 31 L.Ed.2d 569, 572 (1972)). Because we cannot determine whether judgment could be issued as a matter of law, the moving party has failed to meet its burden and therefore is not entitled to summary judgment. Reversed and remanded. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and LEVINE, MESCHKE and SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.