Opinion ID: 2525467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: fraud pleading

Text: ¶ 14 The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provide that [i]n all averments of fraud. . . the circumstances constituting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity. Utah R. Civ. P. 9(b). While [w]e have stressed . . . that mere conclusory allegations in a pleading, unsupported by a recitation of relevant surrounding facts, are insufficient to preclude. . . summary judgment, Chapman v. Primary Children's Hospital, 784 P.2d 1181, 1186 (Utah 1989), a sufficiently clear and specific description of the facts underlying the [plaintiff's] claim of fraudulent concealment. . . . will satisfy the requirements of rule 9(b). Id. Our liberalized pleading rules are designed to afford parties the privilege of presenting whatever legitimate contentions they have pertaining to their dispute, subject only to the requirement that their adversary have fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved. Williams v. State Farm Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 966, 970-971 (Utah 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hill alleges specific facts, many related above, regarding her attempt to purchase a piece of real property with the help of several defendants in this action, the manner in which the transaction was initiated, and the unfolding of events related to her attempt to secure ownership of the property. We hold that Hill did plead fraud with the particularity required by rule 9(b).