King, 166 N.C. App. 2 17 (2005). See also First Investors Corp. v. Citizens Bank, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 687, 690-91 (W.D.N.C. 1991) (observing that “[t]he general rule thus appears to be that conversion actions accrue upon the conversion- itself rather than upon its discovery” and concluding that “the Plaintiffs’ cause of action for each alleged conversion accrued at the time of that particular conversion”), aff’d per curiam, 956 F.2d 263 (4th Cir. 1992). Since the complaint in this case does not allege when Nye made the payments on the loan (the act exercising dominion over the funds), we again cannot determine from the allegations of the complaint that the conversion claim is barred by the statute of limitations. See Benson v. Barefoot, 148 N.C. App. 394, 396, 559 S.E.2d 244, 246 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Finally, this Court held in Lowder v. All
holding that as neither complaint nor answer gave date on which alleged conversions took place judgment on pleadings was improper holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings holding original complaint was admission where it alleged an accident occurred on a different date than the amended complaint holding that discriminatory event which took place three years before was too remote holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits