Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts supporting application of Alabama’s fraud savings clause to claims arising from the alleged concealment of their minor daughter’s abortion. The court concluded that the statute-of-limitations defense did not appear conclusively on the face of the complaint and that the savings clause could apply to the plaintiffs’ non-fraud tort claims as well as their fraud claim. The court reversed the dismissal of the action and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts showing that Alabama's fraud savings clause, Ala. Code § 6-2-3, could toll the statute of limitations.
- Whether the savings clause could apply to the plaintiffs' negligence, interference-with-parental-rights, and tort-of-outrage claims in addition to their fraud claim.
- Whether dismissal of the claims as time-barred was proper at the pleading stage.
Holdings
- The plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the time and circumstances of their discovery, the defendants' alleged concealment of the causes of action or injury, and the circumstances preventing earlier discovery, thereby stating facts that could bring their claims within Ala. Code § 6-2-3.
- The fraud savings clause may apply not only to a fraud claim but also to other tort-based claims when the complaint sufficiently alleges fraudulent concealment of the existence of those causes of action.
- Dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims as untimely was error because the face of the complaints did not establish that the tolling provision was inapplicable.
Key quotations
“In light of the foregoing, and having concluded that the plaintiffs included sufficient allegations in their complaints of the defendants’ alleged fraudulent concealment so as to trigger the savings clause of § 6-2-3, we similarly conclude that the savings clause applies not only to the plaintiffs’ fraud count, but also to the remaining tort-based claims asserted in the plaintiffs’ complaint.” (200 So. 3d at 26)
“The dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims on statute-of-limitations grounds was, at this stage of the proceedings, error. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (200 So. 3d at 26)
Factual background
The plaintiffs alleged that their minor daughter became pregnant by Will Ogburn and that the defendants concealed the pregnancy and arranged for the daughter to travel to New York under the pretense of a family trip so she could obtain an abortion without parental consent. The daughter allegedly returned acting distant, using drugs, and eventually dropping out of school. In May 2013, she disclosed the circumstances of the trip and abortion to the plaintiffs, who filed suit in April 2014.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued the defendants on April 17, 2014, based on the alleged concealment of their minor daughter's pregnancy and abortion during a December 2011 trip to New York. Sandra Sandlin and William Ogburn moved for a more definite statement and dismissal, arguing that the claims were untimely. The trial court dismissed the nonfraud claims as untimely, later dismissed the fraud claim for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b), allowed amendment, and then dismissed the amended fraud claim as untimely, resulting in dismissal of the entire action with prejudice. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; the court did not determine the merits of the plaintiffs' claims or whether the fraud claim ultimately satisfied Rule 9(b).