Harding v. Ja Laur Corp.

Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A demurrer to the third Amended Bill of Complaint that had been brought by Mrs. Lucille M. Harding against Ja Laur Corporation, Macro Housing, Inc., a corporation and Montgomery County, Maryland, a municipal corporation, ²¹¹ was sustained without leave to amend. The bill alleged that a deed 1 had been obtained from the appellant through fraud practiced upon her by the agent of Ja Laur Corporation. The bill further averred that the paper upon which the appellant had affixed her signature was “falsely and fraudulently attached to the first page of a deed identified as the same deed” through which the appellee, Ja Laur Corporation, and its assigns, the other appellees, claim title.

The issue presented by this appeal is, did the Bill of Complaint allege a forgery, thus requiring the demurrer to be overruled. Our answer is, for the reason stated infra, in the affirmative. There is no dispute that the appellant signed some type of paper. Her claim is not that her signature was forged in the normal sense, i.e., someone copied or wrote it, but rather that the forgery is the result of an alteration.

Mrs. Harding alleges that at the time that she signed a blank paper she was told that her signature was necessary in order to straighten out a boundary line. She represents that she did not know that she was conveying away her interest in and to a certain .1517 acres of land in Montgomery County. The parcel of land that was conveyed by the allegedly forged deed is contiguous to a large tract of real estate in which Ja Laur and others had “a substantial interest.” It appears from the bill that Mrs. Harding’s land provided the access from the larger tract to a public road, so that its value to the appellees is obvious. Mrs. Harding excuses herself for signing the “blank paper” by averring that she did so at the instigation of an attorney, an agent of Ja Laur, who had “been a friend of her deceased husband, and . . . represented her deceased husband in prior business and legal matters, and that under [the] circumstances [she] did place her complete trust and reliance in the representations made to her . . .” by the attorney. 2 The “blank paper” was signed “on or about April 2, 1970.” Mrs. Harding states that she did not learn of the fraud until the “summer of 1972.” At ²¹² that time an audit, by the Internal Revenue Service, of her deceased husband’s business revealed the deed to Ja Laur, and its subsequent conveyance to the other appellees. 3 In Smith v. State, 7 Md. App. 457, 460-61 , 256 A. 2d 357, 360 (1970), we said that: “Forgery has been defined as a false making or material alteration, with intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability.

Reddick v. State, 219 Md. 95 , and authorities cited at page 98. More succinctly, forgery is the fraudulent making of a false writing having apparent legal significance. Nelson v. State, 224 Md. 374 . It is thus clear that one of the essential elements of forgery is a writing in such form as to be apparently of some legal efficacy and hence capable of defrauding or deceiving.” (Footnote omitted).

(Emphasis supplied). Perkins, Criminal Law ch. 4, § 8 (2d ed. 1969) states, at 351: “A material alteration may be in the form of (1) an addition to the writing, (2) a substitution of something different in the place of what originally appeared, or (3) the removal of part of the originál. The removal may be by erasure or in some other manner, such as by cutting off a qualifying clause appearing after the signature.” (Footnotes omitted). (Emphasis supplied).

A multitude of cases hold that forgery includes the alteration of or addition to any instrument in order to defraud. See 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure § 632, n. 7 (Anderson ed. 1957). That a deed may be the subject of a forgery is beyond question. Md. Ann. Code Art. 27, § 44; Maskell v. Hill, 189 Md. 327 , 55 A. 2d 842 (1947); People v. ²¹³ Sharp, 53 Mich. 523 , 19 N. W. 168 (1884); State v. Fisher, 65 Mo. 437 (1877); Clark and Marshall, A Treatise on the Law of Crimes § 12.31 (6th ed.

Wingersky rev. 1958). The Bill of Complaint alleges that the signature of Mrs. Harding was obtained through fraud. More important, however, to the issue is whether or not the bill alleges forgery. In our view the charge that appellant’s signature was written upon a paper, which paper was thereafter unbeknown to her made a part of a deed, if true, demonstrates that there has been a material alteration and hence a forgery. 4 While the articulation of the “forgery” in the Bill of Complaint leaves much to be desired, it, nevertheless, is sufficient to state the claim.

It is elementary that a demurrer, for the purpose of the demurrer only, has the effect of admitting the truth of the facts alleged in a Bill of Complaint. Hall v. Barlow Corporation, 255 Md. 28 , 255 A. 2d 873 (1969); Parish v. Milk Producers Assn., 250 Md. 24 , 242 A. 2d 512 (1968); Killen v. Houser, 239 Md. 79 , 210 A. 2d 527 (1965); Brack v. Evans, 230 Md. 548 , 187 A. 2d 880 (1963); Bldg. and Sav. Assn. v. Gorsuch, 180 Md. 185 , 23 A. 2d 672 (1942). Applying that principle to the instant case, the allegation of forgery in the Bill