Angela Wallace v. Evert R. Hawk, II

Summary

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that Maryland’s heart balm statute, Family Law § 3-102, did not bar claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged misrepresentations about a romantic relationship, shared home purchase, financial contributions, and real estate commissions. The court also held that a third-party payment of a real estate commission did not preclude an unjust enrichment claim or potential restitution. The court vacated the circuit court’s judgments and answered both appellate questions in the affirmative.

Holdings

1. Family Law § 3-102 did not bar Wallace's fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims because their real basis was Hawk's alleged deception about the relationship, the planned household, and his financial commitments concerning the house—not his failure to marry Wallace.
2. A benefit supporting an unjust-enrichment claim need not come directly from the plaintiff's own funds. The fact that the sellers paid Hawk's real-estate commission did not defeat Wallace's claim.
3. The court did not reach the constitutional challenge because the appeal could be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Maryland Family Law § 3-102 barred Wallace's fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims because they were allegedly based on a promise to marry.
2. Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on Wallace's unjust-enrichment claim on the ground that the commission was paid by third parties rather than by Wallace.
3. Whether the statute was unconstitutional as applied under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

Disposition

vacated