Opinion ID: 1224651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: failure to plead fraud with particularity

Text: The defendants argue that the allegations of constructive and actual fraud are not plead with the particularity required by 12 O.S. 1991 § 2009(B). [66] The allegations of fraud must be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the opposing party to prepare his/her responsive pleadings and defenses. Gay v. Akin . [67] Particularity does not mean the plaintiff has to plead detailed evidentiary matters. [68] The method for securing the missing information is not by pressing for dismissal but rather by a motion to supply the necessary particulars that would support the allegations of fraud. Because the record is devoid of any denied quest for particulars, the defendants are not entitled to have the petition tested by the Gay v. Akin rule. Applying the Conley v. Gibson standards, [69] we find that the petition, even if wanting in some particularity, is not subject to dismissal. The defendants are entitled to a post-remand opportunity to press for specific information.