With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 269, 601 S.E.2d 296, 297 (2004), this Court held that a plaintiffs claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the defendant’s obtaining a loan in the plaintiff’s name accrued when the plaintiff discovered what the defendant had done. In this case, the complaint alleges that Nye took out the personal loan in March 2003, but does not allege when Marzec discovered this fact. The complaint does not, therefore, contain allegations establishing that this aspect of the fiduciary duty claim is barred by the statute of limitations. As for the conversion of corporate funds, the statute of limitations for conversion generally begins running at the time a defendant asserts dominion over the property. See White v. Consolidated Planning, Inc., 166 N.C. App. 283, 311, 603 S.E.2d 147, 165-66 (2004) (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 286, 610 S.E.2d

A: holding that plaintiffs claim for conversion of funds was barred by statute of limitations because the conversion occurred when robert white exercised unlawful dominion over the funds  in other words when robert white withdrew the funds from the annuities without plaintiffs permission
B: holding that a plaintiffs claim to recover for alleged unauthorized taking of corporate funds for his own benefit involved an allegation of conversion subject to a twoyear statute of limitations
C: holding that theft by taking conviction was supported by evidence of unlawful taking rather than unlawful appropriation of funds where defendant who was given an electronic banking card encoded with the account number of another customer withdrew funds from bank account knowing that she was obtaining funds which did not belong to her and which she had no right to receive
D: holding that companys president was trustee of trust funds because he had control and direction over the funds
A.