Court Opinion

ID: 9646299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:55:31.620624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:36.761759
License: Public Domain

Hammond, C. J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I have considerable doubt that the allegations against any defendant other than Hooper and Robinson sufficiently charge fraud or the gross and culpable negligence in discharge or omission of duties necessary to make him liable, but I bow to the contrary views of my brethren on this point. As to Robinson and Hooper during their periods of employment by the Association, fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty may well have been alleged but to me it clearly appears that the release given them when they were no longer employed was negotiated and executed in good faith at arms length, after full knowledge of all the facts had been obtained by the Association from the Dugan report, and that it is unassailable as far as they are concerned. This is to say that fraud and breach of fiduciary duty that tainted the transactions that led to the release may have been alleged, but that there is no sufficient allegation that fraud or other invalidating agent played any part in its obtention or execution. In my view, Hooper and the executors of Robinson should be let out.
*108LAMBDIN v. PRZYBOROWSKI Opinion of the Court. [250 Md.