Opinion ID: 1802098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Howards, as Administrator and Licensee, May Be Held Liable for Fraud.

Text: ¶ 20. The Howards argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud cannot stand because the Plaintiffs failed to plead their claim with particularity. Fraud will not be inferred or presumed and may not be charged in general terms. The circumstances of the alleged fraud such as the time, place and contents of any false representations or conduct must be stated. Allen v. Mac Tools, Inc., 671 So.2d 636, 642 (Miss.1996). More importantly, circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. Miss. R. Civ. P. 9(b). ¶ 21. The Howards argue that the Plaintiffs' blanket assertions against them and the other defendants do not meet the particularity requirements required by Miss. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and this Court. Specifically, the Howards argue: In fact, the Plaintiffs only make the conclusory general allegation that the defendants implied that the resident in question would receive certain care while at the facility. Plaintiffs have not identified when or where any representations were made, the identity of the person who heard any misrepresentations, or that any such statements were false, much less that statements were intentionally made with knowledge of their falsity. We agree. In their complaints, the Plaintiffs simply allege the collective defendants (not each defendant specifically) misrepresented the qualitative and quantitative care and supervision they would receive, and made those misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs and their families. The complaint does not specify the date or locations the allegedly fraudulent statements were made. We find these general allegations and missing content fatal under the pleading standards of Rule 9(b). As such, the Plaintiffs' claims of fraud against the Howards must be dismissed.