Case Title: Parker v. Hamilton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 78/16

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cassandra Parker, et al. v. William Hamilton, et al., No. 78, September Term, 2016.  
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
 
WRONGFUL DEATH — COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION:  The 
Court of Appeals determined that the General Assembly’s 1997 amendment to Maryland 
Code § 5-201 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“Cts. & Jud. Proc.”) addressed 
the Court’s holding in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52, 626 A.2d 353 (1993) that 
wrongful death claims brought by minor plaintiffs were not tolled during the period of 
minority.  The Court thus held that Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in its current form provides a 
tolling provision for wrongful death actions that accrue in favor of a minor plaintiff during 
the period of minority.  Accordingly, under the version of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in 
effect here, the minor plaintiff’s wrongful death claims were tolled during the period of his 
minority. 
 
WRONGFUL DEATH — COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION:  The 
Court of Appeals determined that the circuit court erred in dismissing Appellants’ wrongful 
death causes of action.  The circuit court failed to consider that the time limitation to file a 
wrongful death action is tolled when the defendant engages in fraudulent conduct that 
prevents the plaintiffs from bringing a wrongful death action within three years from the 
date of death, pursuant to Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203.  The Court determined that Appellants’ 
amended complaint sufficiently pled facts indicating Appellee’s fraudulent conduct, as 
well as facts from which Appellee’s fraud can necessarily be implied.  Thus, the allegations 
in Appellants’ amended complaint were sufficient to invoke Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Circuit Court for Dorchester County 
Case No. C15-022407 
Argued: February 2, 2017 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 78 
 
September Term, 2016 
 
______________________________________ 
 
CASSANDRA PARKER, ET AL. 
 
v. 
 
WILLIAM HAMILTON, ET AL. 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
Greene, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
Rodowsky, Lawrence F. 
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: May 22, 2017
 
 
 
On June 9, 2015, Appellant Cassandra Parker (acting individually and as the 
Personal Representative of the Estate of her son, Craig Junior Parker), and her grandchild, 
Appellant Z. (Mr. Parker’s son, who, by that time was five years old), filed survival and 
wrongful death actions against Appellee William Stevens Hamilton, arising out of the death 
of Craig Junior Parker.  The wrongful death claims were dismissed by the circuit court as 
time-barred under Maryland Code, § 3-904 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article 
(“Cts. & Jud. Proc.”).1  Whether the claims were timely depends on the applicability of two 
provisions—Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201,2 which provides that the time period for bringing a 
wrongful death action that accrues in favor of a minor plaintiff is tolled during the period 
of minority, and Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203, which reads: 
If the knowledge of a cause of action is kept from a party by the fraud of an 
adverse party, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue at the time when 
the party discovered, or by the exercise of ordinary diligence should have 
discovered the fraud. 
 
                                                          
 
1 Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904 provides in relevant part: 
 
Limitations 
 
(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection, an action 
under this subtitle shall be filed within three years after the death of the 
injured person. 
 
2 Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 provides in relevant part: 
 
Accruals which favor minors or mentally incompetent persons 
 
(a) When a cause of action subject to a limitation under Subtitle 1 of this title 
or Title 3, Subtitle 9 of this article accrues in favor of a minor or mental 
incompetent, that person shall file his action within the lesser of three years 
or the applicable period of limitations after the date the disability is removed. 
 
 
- 2 - 
 
We shall hold that both provisions apply.  Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 operates to toll a minor 
plaintiff’s wrongful death claims during the period of his or her minority.  Thus, the circuit 
court erred in dismissing the minor Appellant’s wrongful death claims as untimely.  
Furthermore, the circuit court erred in failing to consider that the time limitation to file a 
wrongful death action is tolled when the defendant engages in fraudulent conduct that 
prevents the plaintiffs from bringing a wrongful death action within three years from the 
date of death, pursuant to Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203.  Appellants’ amended complaint 
sufficiently pled fraud in order to invoke Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
The following facts are alleged in Appellants’ Amended Complaint.  
On or about August 22, 2009, Mr. Hamilton shot and killed Mr. Parker.  At the time, 
Mr. Parker was thirty-eight years old, and worked as a farmhand for Mr. Hamilton.  Mr. 
Parker was survived by his mother, Cassandra Parker and his son, Z., born on November 
17, 2009—Appellants in this matter.  Appellants allege that Mr. Hamilton buried Mr. 
Parker’s remains in order to conceal his wrongdoing. 
On June 9, 2015, Cassandra Parker (acting individually and as the Personal 
Representative of the Estate of her son, Mr. Parker) and her minor grandchild, Z. (Mr. 
Parker’s son), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County against Mr. 
Hamilton arising out of the wrongful death of Mr. Parker.  Appellants thereafter filed an 
amended complaint in which they added William Vogel, Jr.3 as a defendant.  The amended 
                                                          
 
3 Appellants allege fraudulent conveyance in Count 7 of their amended complaint. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(continued . . .) 
 
- 3 - 
 
complaint included counts of: (1) wrongful death based on negligence, (2) a survival action 
based on negligence, (3) wrongful death based on gross negligence, (4) a survival action 
based on gross negligence, (5) wrongful death based on battery, (6) a survival action based 
on battery, and (7) fraudulent conveyance. 
Mr. Hamilton filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, or in the alternative, motion 
for summary judgment.  The circuit court held a motions hearing, after which it issued a 
written opinion granting the motion to dismiss as to the wrongful death claims, and denying 
the motion as to the survival claims of Mr. Parker’s estate.   
Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied without a hearing.  
Appellants filed a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.  This Court granted 
certiorari before the Court of Special Appeals’ consideration of the direct appeal.  Parker 
v. Hamilton, 450 Md. 664, 150 A.3d 819 (2016).  Appellants’ brief4 presents three 
questions for review: 
                                                          
 
(. . . continued) 
Appellants specifically allege that Mr. Hamilton gave Mr. Vogel, Jr. an undivided one-half 
interest in a farm owned by Mr. Hamilton, by deed dated May 29, 2015.  Appellants further 
allege that Mr.  Vogel, Jr. gave no consideration in exchange for the one-half interest in 
the farm. 
 
4 Appellants’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court did not present Question 
III for review.  When we assume jurisdiction over an appeal pending, but undecided, before 
the Court of Special Appeals, we “consider those issues that would have been cognizable 
by the Court of Special Appeals.”  Md. Rule 8-131(b)(2).  In such cases, “we rely on the 
question or questions in both the appellants’ brief and the appellee’s brief to present the 
issue or issues we consider.”  City Of Frederick v. Pickett, 392 Md. 411, 423 n. 7, 897 A.2d 
228, 235 n. 7 (2006).  Here, Question III would have been cognizable by the Court the 
Special Appeals, and Appellants’ brief presented Question III.  Thus, we consider Question 
III. 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
I.  
Did the trial court improperly ignore Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-
201 when it determined that the wrongful death claims of the minor 
plaintiff were not tolled until the age of majority?  
 
II.  
Does the trial court’s decision that the minor plaintiff’s wrongful 
death claims were not tolled during his minority violate Article 19 of 
the Maryland Declaration of Rights?  
 
III.  
Did the trial court err when it determined that the defendant’s 
fraudulent concealment of a murder failed to toll the plaintiffs’ 
wrongful death claims under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. [Proc.] § 5-203? 
 
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
The parties contest the appropriate standard of review.  Mr. Hamilton argues that 
the circuit court granted a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment—and 
therefore, this Court should not consider evidence outside of the pleadings.  In response, 
Appellants argue that while the circuit court’s order was not clear as to whether it granted 
a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, the circuit court referred 
throughout the opinion to evidence and testimony received at the motions hearing, which 
was beyond the four corners of the complaint.  Appellants assert that by considering 
evidence outside of the scope of the pleadings in rendering its ruling, the motion to dismiss 
was converted to one for summary judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(c).  During 
oral argument before this Court, counsel for Mr. Hamilton contended that the circuit court 
conducted a discrete review of the wrongful death actions, as a motion to dismiss, and only 
considered evidence outside of the pleadings as it pertained to the remaining causes of 
action.  
In the section of the circuit court’s opinion entitled “Wrongful Death Claims—
Condition Precedent[,]” the circuit court concluded, “Because the Complaint was not filed 
 
- 5 - 
 
until June 9, 2014, long after the three-year time deadline of August 22, 2012, the wrongful 
death claims, Counts 1, 3, and 5, must be dismissed.”  The dismissal of the wrongful death 
claims was grounded in (1) the application of the time limitation in the wrongful death 
statute as a condition precedent and (2) the rejection of Appellants’ argument regarding the 
retroactivity of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904(g), which creates an exception to the condition 
for wrongful death actions based on criminal homicides.  Based on these grounds for 
dismissal, we determine the review of the wrongful death causes of action was limited to 
the pleadings. 
We have outlined the applicable standard of review pertaining to dismissals for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as follows: 
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action 
pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2), a trial court must assume the truth 
of all well-pleaded relevant and material facts in the complaint, as well as all 
inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.  Stone v. Chicago Title 
Ins. Co., 330 Md. 329, 333, 624 A.2d 496, 498 (1993); Odyniec v. 
Schneider, 322 Md. 520, 525, 588 A.2d 786, 788 (1991).  To this end, the 
facts comprising the cause of action must be pleaded with sufficient 
specificity.  Bald assertions and conclusory statements by the pleader will 
not suffice.  [Cont’l] Masonry Co. v. Verdel Constr. Co., 279 Md. 476, 481, 
369 A.2d 566, 569 (1977).  Further, while the words of a pleading will be 
given reasonable construction, when a pleading is doubtful and ambiguous, 
it will be construed most strongly against the pleader in determining its 
sufficiency.  Hixon v. Buchberger, 306 Md. 72, 75, 507 A.2d 607, 608 
(1986); Read Drug & Chem. Co. v. Colwill Constr. Co., 250 Md. 406, 416, 
243 A.2d 548, 555 (1968).  Dismissal is proper only if the alleged facts and 
permissible inferences, so viewed, would, if proven, nonetheless fail to 
afford relief to the plaintiff.  Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 
519, 531, 667 A.2d 624, 630 (1995).  On appeal, a reviewing court must 
determine whether the trial court was legally correct, examining solely the 
sufficiency of the pleading. 
 
Bobo v. State, 346 Md. 706, 708–09, 697 A.2d 1371, 1372–73 (1997). 
 
 
- 6 - 
 
III.  DISCUSSION 
 
Appellants argue that Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 was enacted more than 20 years ago 
in response to this Court’s decision in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52, 626 A.2d 353 
(1993), and that Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 clearly provides for tolling in a wrongful death 
case during the period of minority.  Appellants further aver that not allowing the action to 
be tolled until the age of majority would violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of 
Rights, as held by this Court in Piselli v. 75th St. Med., 371 Md. 188, 808 A.2d 508 (2002).  
Lastly, Appellants argue that they properly invoked Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-203, which tolls 
the time limit for bringing a wrongful death action when the defendant fraudulently 
conceals his or her wrongful conduct. 
In response, Mr. Hamilton argues that the circuit court properly construed Cts. & 
Jud. Proc. § 5-201 as inapplicable to wrongful death claims.  Mr. Hamilton relies on our 
ruling in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52, 626 A.2d 353 (1993), where we determined 
the time limit contained in Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904(g) was a condition precedent to 
maintaining an action, as opposed to a statute of limitations.  Mr. Hamilton opposes 
Appellants’ proffered interpretation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights as applied to 
the minor plaintiff.  Lastly, Mr. Hamilton proposes that the Appellants did not specifically 
plead fraud within their complaint, and thus, their wrongful death claims could not be 
tolled. 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
A. 
Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in its current form provides for tolling of wrongful death 
claims during the period of minority. 
 
 
Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 states that the time period for bringing a wrongful death 
action that accrues on behalf of a minor plaintiff is tolled during the period of minority.  
Subsection (a) of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 provides: 
(a) When a cause of action subject to a limitation under Subtitle 1 of this title 
or Title 3, Subtitle 9 of this article accrues in favor of a minor or mental 
incompetent, that person shall file his action within the lesser of three years 
or the applicable period of limitations after the date the disability is removed. 
 
(emphasis added).  The history leading up to the current section provides context for the 
statute’s establishment of a tolling provision for minor wrongful death beneficiaries. 
 
1. 
A brief history of wrongful death limitations 
 
At common law, a tort victim’s dependents were not entitled to pursue an action for 
wrongful death.  See Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516, 522, 569 A.2d 645, 648 (1990) (citing 
W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 127, at 945 (5th ed. 1984)).  “The 
common law not only denied a tort recovery for injury once the tort victim had died it also 
refused to recognize any new and independent cause of action in the victim’s dependents 
or heirs for their own loss at his death.”  Walker, 318 Md. at 522, 569 A.2d at 648 (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  To remedy this, the English Parliament enacted the Fatal 
Accidents Act of 1846, otherwise known as Lord Campbell’s Act.  Id.  Every state has 
since adopted its own version of a wrongful death statute, Maryland in 1852.  Id. 
 
A wrongful death action is brought for the benefit of the surviving family members, 
to compensate for the losses occasioned by their family member’s death:  
 
- 8 - 
 
The purpose of the Wrongful Death Act is “to compensate the families of 
persons killed by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another person.”  It 
gives to the family a “new cause of action for something for which the 
deceased person never had, and never could have had the right to sue — that 
is to say, the injury resulting from his death.” 
 
Binnix v. Johns-Manville Prod. Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1180, 1182 (D. Md. 1984) (emphasis 
omitted) (quoting Stewart v. United Elec. Light & Power Corp., 104 Md. 332, 341, 343, 
65 A. 49, 53 (1906)). 
 
Originally, the statute required suit to “be commenced within 12 calendar months 
after the death of the deceased person.”  Waddell, 331 Md. at 56 n. 4, 626 A.2d at 355 n.4 
(quoting 1852 Md. Laws Ch. 299).  This time limitation, which was eventually codified in 
Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904, was later extended to eighteen months, then in 1959 to two years.  
Id.   
In 1971, the General Assembly again amended the statute, extending the time period 
from two to three years from the date of the decedent’s death.  In making this change, the 
General Assembly stated its intent to treat the time period to file a wrongful death action 
the same as the time limitations applicable in negligence actions.  In the Preamble to the 
legislation approving the extension of time from two to three years, it stated:  
WHEREAS, the General Assembly desires to bring the statute of limitations 
for wrongful death actions in uniformity with that of other negligence 
actions.  
 
WHEREAS, there is no logical reason for the variance between the time 
limits for commencement of actions.  
 
WHEREAS, citizens may be misled to their detriment by the variance 
between the respective statutes of limitations resulting in an undue forfeiture 
of rights.  
 
 
- 9 - 
 
Waddell, 331 Md. at 56, 626 A.2d at 355 (quoting 1971 Md. Laws Ch. 784). 
 
2. 
This Court’s decision in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick 
 
In 1993, a case came before this Court in which the plaintiff, who was only three 
years old at the time of her father’s death, waited until she was twenty years old to file her 
wrongful death claim.  Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52, 626 A.2d 353 (1993).  She 
argued that her claim was timely even though it was filed more than three years after her 
father’s death because, pursuant to Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 (which, at the time, did not 
refer to Title 3, Subtitle 9 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article),5 the time limit for 
bringing her claim was tolled during her minority.  Id. at 56, 626 A.2d at 355. 
 
We discussed the distinction between a statute of limitations and a condition 
precedent—as a statute of limitations affects only the remedy, not the cause of action.  Id. 
at 59, 626 A.2d at 356.  Conversely, we looked to our jurisprudence analyzing the effect 
of a time requirement then prescribed within the wrongful death statute: 
The [statute] create[s] a new legal liability, with the right to suit for its 
enforcement, provided the suit is brought within twelve months, and not 
otherwise.  The time within which the suit must be brought operates as a 
limitation of the liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone.  It is 
a condition attached to the right to sue at all. . . .  Time has been made of the 
                                                          
 
5 The version of the statute interpreted in Waddell was Md. Code (1989 Repl. Vol.) 
Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201, which provided, in pertinent part: 
 
(a) Extension of time.—When a cause of action subject to a limitation of 
Subtitle 1 of this title accrues in favor of a minor or mental incompetent, that 
person shall file his action within the lesser of three years or the applicable 
period of limitations after the date the disability is removed. 
 
Waddell, 331 Md. at 53 n. 1, 626 A.2d at 353 n. 1. 
 
 
- 10 - 
 
essence of the right and the right is lost if the time is disregarded.  The 
liability and the remedy are created by the same statutes, and the limitations 
of the remedy are, therefore, to be treated as limitations of the right. 
 
Id. at 59, 626 A.2d at 356 (quoting State v. Parks, 148 Md. 477, 129 A. 793, 794 (1925)).  
We thus held that the time period for commencing actions prescribed in the wrongful death 
statute is a condition precedent, operating as a limitation of both liability and remedy: 
Once it has been established that section 3-904(g) is a condition precedent, 
as opposed to a statute of limitations, it follows inexorably that it does not fit 
within the prescription of section 5-101. Consequently, section 5-201 does 
not save a cause of action for wrongful death notwithstanding the disability 
of the plaintiff at the time the action accrued. 
 
Waddell, 331 Md. at 60, 626 A.2d at 356.   
 
3. 
The General Assembly’s amendment of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in 
response to Waddell 
 
 
Following this Court’s decision in Waddell, in 1997, the General Assembly added 
language to Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 that specifically referenced its application to 
wrongful death actions: 
(a) When a cause of action subject to a limitation under Subtitle 1 of this title 
OR TITLE 3, SUBTITLE 9 OF THIS ARTICLE accrues in favor of a 
minor or mental incompetent, that person shall file his action within the lesser 
of three years or the applicable period of limitations after the date the 
disability is removed. 
 
1997 Md. Laws Ch. 318 (emphasis added).  By specifically referencing the wrongful death 
statute within the new version of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201, the General Assembly amended 
the statute to provide that the time period to file a wrongful death cause of action is tolled 
during a plaintiff’s minority. 
 
- 11 - 
 
 
This intent is supported by the legislative history contained in the bill file.  The 
Bill Analysis generated by the General Assembly for the Bill states: 
Additionally, the bill establishes that when the time period to file wrongful 
death action accrues in favor of a minor or mental incompetent, that person 
must file the action within the lesser of three years or the applicable period 
of limitations after the date the disability is removed. 
 
* * * 
 
[C]urrent law provides that when a cause of action subject to a statute of 
limitations accrues in favor of a minor or mental incompetent, that person 
has three years after the disability is removed to file the action.  Courts have 
interpreted the time period to file a wrongful death action as a condition 
precedent and not a statute of limitations.  The bill provides the same 
extension of time to wrongful death actions that is currently provided to 
other actions with a statute of limitations. 
 
Bill Analysis of H.B. 770 (1997) (emphasis added). 
 
The legislative history of the General Assembly’s 1997 amendment to Cts. & Jud. 
Proc. § 5-201 demonstrates that the amendment was intended to address our determination 
in Waddell that there was no tolling for minor plaintiffs in wrongful death actions.  Thus, 
we hold that Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in its current form provides for tolling during the 
period of minority.  Accordingly, under the version of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in effect 
here, the minor plaintiff Z.’s wrongful death claims were tolled during the period of his 
minority. 
 
Appellants further argue that not allowing for tolling until the age of majority would 
violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, as held by this Court in Piselli v. 
75th St. Med., 371 Md. 188, 808 A.2d 508 (2002).  Because we determined that the plain 
language of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201 in its current form provides for tolling of a wrongful 
 
- 12 - 
 
death claim during a period of minority, it is not necessary for us to reach the constitutional 
issue.  See, e.g., Mercy Hospital v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556, 565, 510 A.2d 562, 566 (1986) 
(stating that “this Court’s established policy is to decide constitutional issues only when 
necessary.”). 
B. 
Appellants’ amended complaint sufficiently pled fraud in order to invoke Cts. & 
Jud. Proc. § 5-203. 
 
 
Appellants further argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their causes of 
action by failing to consider that the time limitation to file a wrongful death action is tolled 
when the defendant engages in fraudulent conduct that prevents the plaintiff from bringing 
a wrongful death claim within three years from the date of death.  We agree. 
Appellants aver that our decision in Geisz v. Greater Balt. Med. Ctr., 313 Md. 301, 
545 A.2d 658 (1988) controls this issue and supports the determination that their claims 
should be tolled.  Geisz was a medical negligence case in which the plaintiffs—a wife and 
son—brought a wrongful death action ten years after the death of a husband and father 
from cancer.  They argued, pursuant to Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203, that their cause of action 
was tolled by the defendant physician’s fraudulent conduct in continuing to assure them 
that he was receiving the best possible care with the most up-to-date technologies.  See id. 
at 309, 321–25, 545 A.2d at 662, 667–70.  They claimed that it was not until years later 
that they discovered the physician’s department was understaffed, underequipped, and 
failed to properly verify that the radiation treatment he was rendering was working.   Id. at 
312–13, 545 A.2d. at 663–64.  In addressing the threshold issue of first impression, this 
 
- 13 - 
 
Court held that Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203 applied to wrongful death actions.  Id. at 324–25, 
545 A.2d at 669.  
 
Mr. Hamilton argues that the Appellants did not sufficiently plead fraud within their 
complaint in order to invoke Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203.  We disagree.  In the amended 
complaint, Appellants pled that (1) on or about August 22, 2009, Mr. Hamilton shot and 
killed Mr. Parker and (2) Mr. Hamilton buried Mr. Parker’s remains in order to conceal his 
wrongdoing.  We determine that these allegations were sufficient to reflect Mr. Hamilton’s 
fraudulent conduct, and facts from which Mr. Hamilton’s fraud can necessarily be implied.  
See Antigua Condo. Ass’n v. Melba Inv’rs Atl., Inc., 307 Md. 700, 735, 517 A.2d 75, 93 
(1986) (“General or conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.  A plaintiff must allege 
facts which indicate fraud or from which fraud is necessarily implied.”); Parish v. Md. & 
Va. Milk Producers Ass’n, 250 Md. 24, 72, 242 A.2d 512, 539 (1968) (“It is equally well-
settled that it is not necessary to charge the defendants specifically with ‘fraud’ or with 
‘acting fraudulently’ if the facts alleged indicate fraud or are such that fraud is necessarily 
implied from the alleged facts.”).  Thus, the circuit court erred in dismissing the wrongful 
death counts, as the amended complaint sufficiently pled fraud in order to invoke Cts. & 
Jud. Proc. § 5-203. 
IV.  CONCLUSION 
 
We determined that pursuant to Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-201, the minor plaintiff Z.’s 
wrongful death claims were tolled during the period of his minority.  Furthermore, the 
Appellants’ amended complaint sufficiently pled fraud in order to invoke Cts. & Jud. Proc. 
 
- 14 - 
 
§ 5-203.  Thus, the circuit court erred in granting Mr. Hamilton’s motion to dismiss the 
wrongful death counts. 
JUDGMENT 
OF 
THE 
CIRCUIT 
COURT FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY 
IS REVERSED.  CASE REMANDED 
FOR 
FURTHER 
PROCEEDINGS 
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  
COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE 
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE 
PAID 
BY 
APPELLEE 
WILLIAM 
HAMILTON.