Iv. [§ 1.34] Multiple Counts

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

IV. [§ 1.34] MULTIPLE COUNTS

When a complaint alleges more than one cause of action, each cause of action must be pled in a separately numbered count. Md. Rule 2-303(a); Hines v. French, 157 Md. App. 536, 574 n.12, 852 A.2d 1047, 1069 (2004); Kee v. State Highway Admin.,313 Md. 445, 545 A.2d 1312 (1988); Pearlstein v. Md. Deposit Ins. Fund, 79 Md. App. 41, 555 A.2d 528 (1989). "A party may state as many separate claims or defenses the party has, regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds." Yacko v. Mitchell, 249 Md. App. 640, 694 n.13, 246 A.3d 720, 751 (2021) (citing Md. Rule 2-303(c)).

The requirement that a complaint contain separately numbered counts for separate causes of actions encourages the filing of an organized complaint where identifiable issues are readily recognized by the court and the defendant. See Paul V. Niemeyer & Linda M. Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary 321-22 (LexisNexis Matthew Bender 5th ed. 2020).

The failure to state separate causes of action in separate counts is improper and renders the complaint deficient. See D'Aoust v. Diamond, 197 Md. App. 195, 213, 13 A.3d 43, 54 (2010), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 424 Md. 549, 36 A.3d 941 (2012); Hines v. French, 157 Md. App. 536, 574 n.12, 852 A.2d 1047, 1069 (2004); see also Tavakoli-Nouri v. State, 139 Md. App. 716, 733, 779 A.2d 992, 1002 (2001) (citing this Treatise); Thomas v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 48 Md. App. 617, 623, 429 A.2d 277, 282 (1981). The complaint is then subject to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Sommers v. Wilson Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 270 Md. 397, 311 A.2d 776 (1973); Kirchner v. Allied Contractors, Inc., 213 Md. 31, 131 A.2d 251 (1957); see also Niemeyer & Schuett, supra, at 321-22.

In Hines v. French, 157 Md. App. 536, 852 A.2d 1047 (2004), the Court reiterated that the failure to set forth a cause of action in a separately numbered count "renders that portion of the complaint deficient" in light of the requirement of Md. Rule 2-303(a), but noted that amendment of the complaint to cure the deficiency should be permitted. Id. at 574 n.13, 852 A.2d at 1069 n.13 (citing Tavakoli-Nouri, 139 Md. App. at 732-33, 779 A.2d at 1001-02). In D'Aoust v. Diamond, 197 Md. App. 195, 13 A.3d 43 (2010), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 424 Md. 549, 36 A.3d 941 (2012) the Court of Special Appeals stated:

[T]here can be no argument that actual fraud is a cause of action distinct from constructive fraud. Appellant's "actual fraud" allegation is included

...