Court Opinion

ID: 9804540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:54:43.443827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:15:29.979195
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶72] I concur with the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I write separately because, in my view of the law, there is no such thing as “[a] tort action for fraud.” Majority opinion at ¶ 27. For the reasons I articulated in Erickson v. Brown, 2008 ND 57, ¶¶ 59-93, 747 N.W.2d 34 (Crothers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), deceit is a tort claim and fraud is a claim for avoidance of a contract. Had this difference been clear in our modern cases, I presume counsel would have pleaded a tort action for deceit rather than a contract avoidance action for fraud, and the district court’s and this Court’s analysis ultimately would obtain their same results.
[¶ 73] Daniel J. Crothers