BROADCASTS.com

b'Appellant Daniel J. Engstrom filed this lawsuit alleging that after his mother\\u2019s death, respondents Whitebirch, Inc. and other entities associated with a particular timeshare community sent him a letter stating that his mother had added his name to the deed for a particular timeshare and had filed it with the county. They requested that Engstrom quitclaim his interest in the property to respondents or pay unpaid maintenance fees on the property. According to Engstrom\\u2019s complaint, respondents threatened to begin collection activities against him if he did not sign a quitclaim deed. Engstrom denied having any interest in the timeshare and alleged that respondents committed fraud with respect to the deed. Engstrom refused to either pay the maintenance fee or quitclaim the property to respondents; instead he hired a lawyer who sent a letter to respondents alleging fraud, slander of title, and violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The letter also demanded that respondents cease contact with Engstrom and pay him $2,500 in damages. The eventual lawsuit included allegations of two counts of violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. \\xa7 325F.69 (2018), and sought a variety of relief including attorney fees under the private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. \\xa7 8.31 (2018).\\n\\nThe district court granted respondents\\u2019 motions to dismiss the fraud claims, concluding that Engstrom had not alleged any injury. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that his alleged injury\\u2014attorney fees expended in responding to the fraud\\u2014did not support a private claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.\\n\\nOn appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether attorney fees expended to investigate and respond to a fraudulent demand are a type of injury that may support a private claim alleging a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. (Crow Wing County)'