Opinion ID: 1151119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: COUNTS V, VI, and VII

Text: Counts V, VI, and VII request money damages for civil fraud and misrepresentation. Count V avers: 4. On or about the Holy Family School term of 1983-1984, at the Defendants' request, the Plaintiffs paid the required pre-registration fee for the continued enrollment of their children in Holy Family School for the 1984-1985 school term and the Plaintiffs also agreed to abide by the rules and regulations contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set out herein [omitted from this opinion]. 5. At that time, the Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that if they would pay the pre-registration fee for the Holy Family School term 1984-1985 and would agree to comply with all the rules and regulations concerning that school, that the Defendants would provide continued enrollment and education for the Plaintiffs during the 1984-1985 school year. The Defendants maliciously, arbitrarily, capriciously and unfairly refused to allow the Plaintiffs to attend the 1984-1985 Holy Family School term. 6. The representations made by the Defendants were false and the Defendants knew that they were false. 7. The Plaintiffs believed the representations and in reliance upon them paid their pre-registration fee and agreed to comply with all the rules and regulations set out by the Holy Family School and did comply with said rules and regulations. Count VI avers: 8. On or about the Holy Family School term of 1983-1984, at the Defendants' request, the Plaintiffs paid the required pre-registration fee for the continued enrollment of their children in Holy Family School for the 1984-1985 school term and the Plaintiffs also agreed to abide by the rules and regulations contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set out herein [omitted from this opinion]. 9. At that time the Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that if they would pay the pre-registration fee for the Holy Family School term 1984-1985 and would agree to comply with all the rules and regulations concerning that school, that the Defendants would provide continued enrollment and education for the Plaintiffs during the 1984-1985 school year. The Defendants maliciously, arbitrarily, capriciously and unfairly refused to allow the Plaintiffs to attend the 1984-1985 Holy Family School term. 10. The representations made by the Defendants were false and Defendants, without knowledge of the true facts recklessly misrepresented them. 11. The Plaintiffs believed the representations and in reliance upon them paid their pre-registration fee and agreed to comply with all the rules and regulations set out by the Holy Family School and did comply with said rules and regulations. And, Count VII avers: 12. On or about the Holy Family School term of 1983-1984, at the Defendants' request, the Plaintiffs paid the required pre-registration fee for the continued enrollment of their children in Holy Family School for the 1984-1985 school term and the Plaintiffs also agreed to abide by the rules and regulations contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set out herein [omitted from this opinion]. 13. At that time the Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that if they would pay the pre-registration fee for the Holy Family School term 1984-1985 and would agree to comply with all the rules and regulations concerning that school, that the Defendants would provide continued enrollment and education for the Plaintiffs during the 1984-1985 school year. The Defendants maliciously, arbitrarily, capriciously and unfairly refused to allow the Plaintiffs to attend the 1984-1985 Holy Family School term. 14. The representations made by the Defendants were false and were made by mistake, but with the intention that the Plaintiffs should rely upon them. 15. The Plaintiffs believed the representations and in reliance upon them paid their pre-registration fee and agreed to comply with all the rules and regulations set out by the Holy Family School and did comply with said rules and regulations. Defendants argue that the VanLoocks have not pleaded the alleged fraud and misrepresentation with sufficient particularity under our Rules. Rule 9(b), Ala.R. Civ.P., provides that the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity, but that [m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally. The Committee Comments to Rule 9(b) state: [T]his special requirement [of particularity in pleading] as to fraud and mistake does not require every element in such actions to be stated with particularity. It simply commands the pleader to use more than generalized or conclusory statements to set out the fraud complained of. The pleading must show time, place, and contents or substance of the false representations, the fact misrepresented, and an identification of what has been obtained. With the above statements in mind, we cannot say that the VanLoocks have failed to plead their fraud and misrepresentation counts with sufficient particularity. While the pleading is perhaps not a model of clarity and specificity, it sufficiently comports with the purpose of Rule 9(b) in that it gives the defendants fair notice of the acts complained of. Caron v. Teagle, 345 So.2d 1331, 1333 (Ala.1977). In Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson, 353 So.2d 1380 (Ala.1977), appeal after remand, 371 So.2d 899 (Ala. 1979), this Court held that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded fraud to comply with Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement. Upon comparison of the pleading in Henderson with the VanLoocks' pleading, we are unable to discern a difference in degree of particularity. We, therefore, find that Counts V, VI, and VII of the instant complaint sufficiently state claims of fraud and misrepresentation upon which relief may be granted. Because we find that each count of the VanLoock complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of the complaint and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur.