Court Opinion

ID: 9877309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:56:49.868817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:21.368449
License: Public Domain

VandeWalle, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 30] I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. While I am concerned about the error in the notice and the application of N.D.C.C. § 40-22-43, requiring an action to contest the proceeding must be brought within 30 days of the sale of warrants to finance the improvement, the statute allows no other result in this instance even though the Gity did not acknowledge the error until much more than 30 days after the sale of the warrants. The majority, correctly I believe, denotes § 40-22-43 as a statute of repose. Black’s Law Dictionary 1423 (7th ed. 1999) defines a statute of repose as a “statute that bars a suit a fixed number of years after the defendant acts in’ some way ... even if this period ends before the plaintiff has suffered any injury.” If § 40-22-43 were a statute of limitation, the time for bringing an action to contest the proceeding might be held .to run from the time the plaintiffs were notified or otherwise discovered the error in the notice. See, e.g., Iverson v. Lancaster, 158 N.W.2d 507 (N.D. 1968) (applying the discovery rule to malpractice actions); N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3) (as amended by 1975 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 284 codifying discovery rule in malpractice actions). If a remedy for an error such as *427this is to be found, the Legislature must find it.
[¶ 81] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.
Daniel-J. Crothers