D'Aoust v. Diamond, 13 A.3d 43

On April 7, 2008, D’Aoust sued Diamond, Brown, and Rosen Hoover, P.A. in Harford County Circuit Court.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 26, 2008, which the court granted on September 29, 2009; appeal followed.
Allegations arose from a judicial sale of property conducted by Diamond and Brown as court-appointed trustees in 2005.
Plaintiff alleged failure to mail notice to 11010 Bowerman Road, resulting in lack of knowledge of sale and missed opportunities to prevent it.
Two counts were pled: breach of duty and constructive fraud; an actual fraud allegation was included within breach of duty.
The trial court treated the motion as a dismissal/summary-judgment hybrid and granted relief against appellant, prompting appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss	D’Aoust claims immunity does not bar her claims; pleading supports constructive and actual fraud.	Diamond, Brown, and Rosen Hoover enjoy qualified (and possibly absolute) immunity; dismissal proper.	Yes; trial court erred; judgment reversed and remanded.

Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (1995) (discusses absolute judicial immunity and its limits)
Tucker v. Woolery, 99 Md.App. 295 (1994) (extends immunity analysis to trustees performing discretionary judicial acts)
Canaj, Inc. v. Baker & Div. Phase III, 391 Md. 374 (2006) (constructive fraud governs notice failures; one breach may give rise to constructive fraud)
Jannenga v. Johnson, 243 Md. 1 (1966) (constructive fraud for failure to perform legal duties though without intentional deceit)
Houghton v. Forrest, 412 Md. 578 (2010) (intent distinguishes between acts immune from liability and intentional torts; malicious intent matters)
Converge Servs. Group, LLC v. Curran, 383 Md. 462 (2004) (motion to dismiss treated as summary judgment when outside-pleading evidence is considered)