Maryland State Court Answer - General Denial

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER, GENERAL DENIAL, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Before filing: Maryland Rule 2-322(a) requires lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service to be raised by a motion to dismiss before the answer. Filing the answer first waives these defenses. If one applies, prepare the pre-answer motion separately; for personal jurisdiction, distinguish CJP § 6-102 (general jurisdiction) from § 6-103 (long-arm jurisdiction). Remove this guidance from the filed answer.

Maryland Circuit Court

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS

1. Replace all bracketed placeholders with case-specific information.
2. Answer Deadline — Circuit Court: Rule 2-321(a) ordinarily allows 30 days after service. Rule 2-321(b) provides longer periods in specified circumstances, including 60 days when a defendant is served outside Maryland but within the United States. Check the applicable subsection before calculating the deadline.
3. District Court response: This Circuit Court answer form is not the District Court response. A District Court defendant ordinarily files a Notice of Intention to Defend under Md. Rule 3-307 within 15 days after receiving the summons; the Maryland Courts' instructions give out-of-state defendants 60 days. Use the District Court notice and its instructions for that forum.
4. General Denial Availability: Under Md. Rule 2-323(d), a general denial is available count by count when the action in that count is for breach of contract, debt, or tort and seeks money only. A mixed complaint may require a general denial for eligible counts and paragraph-by-paragraph responses for other counts.
5. Affirmative Defenses: Md. Rule 2-323(g) directs the listed affirmative defenses and any other avoidance to be set forth as separate defenses. Do not assume a blanket reservation preserves an omitted defense; counsel must determine the consequence and any amendment procedure under the current rules.
6. Electronic Filing: MDEC (Maryland Electronic Courts) is statewide. Attorneys filing in Maryland circuit courts generally must file electronically under Md. Rule 20-106, subject to the rule's exceptions. Use filing code "ANSWER."
7. Verification: Check whether an applicable statute, rule, or order requires a verified answer in this case.
8. Counterclaims: A Circuit Court counterclaim is optional under Md. Rule 2-331(a). Rule 2-331(d) gives 30 days after the time for filing the answer; a later counterclaim may draw a motion to strike, which the court assesses for prejudice.
9. Remove all instructional notes before filing.

CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR [________________________________] COUNTY, MARYLAND

Civil Action No.: [________________________________]

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER, GENERAL DENIAL, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-321 and 2-323, Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff [________________________________] ("Plaintiff") filed on [__/__/____], and states as follows:

II. GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-323(d), Defendant generally denies liability as to Count(s) [________________________________] of the Complaint. Each listed count is:

☐ Breach of contract — seeking money damages only

☐ Debt — seeking money damages only

☐ Tort — seeking money damages only

Because each listed count is for [breach of contract / debt / tort] and seeks money only, Defendant may answer that count by a general denial under Md. Rule 2-323(d). Defendant responds under Rule 2-323(c) to every other count and averment in Section IV.

As to the counts identified above, except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies each and every allegation, matter, and thing and demands strict proof thereof at trial.

III. SPECIFIC ADMISSIONS (IF ANY)

Defendant admits the following allegations solely for purposes of this Answer, and denies all remaining allegations:

☐ No specific admissions. Defendant denies all allegations in their entirety.

☐ Limited admissions:

1. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph [____] of the Complaint that [________________________________].

2. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph [____] of the Complaint that [________________________________].

3. All other allegations not expressly admitted herein are denied.

IV. ALTERNATIVE: PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH RESPONSE

(Use this section for every count not eligible for Rule 2-323(d), including a count seeking non-monetary relief, and for any allegation requiring a specific response.)

(Add additional rows as necessary to correspond with each paragraph of the Complaint.)

To the extent any allegation of the Complaint is not expressly admitted above, it is hereby denied.

V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Without assuming any burden of proof that the law does not place upon Defendant, and expressly reserving the right to amend, supplement, or withdraw these defenses as discovery proceeds, Defendant asserts the following Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-323(g):

Defense 1: Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and should be dismissed in its entirety. Md. Rule 2-322(b)(2).

Defense 2: Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute(s) of limitation, including but not limited to:

☐ Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (General three-year limitation)

☐ Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (Contract claims — three years)

☐ Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (Tort claims — three years)

☐ Other: [________________________________]

Defense 3: Contributory Negligence

Plaintiff's own negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, barring recovery under Maryland's contributory negligence doctrine. See Harrison v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983).

NOTE: Maryland follows the doctrine of pure contributory negligence, not comparative fault. Even a slight degree of fault on the part of the plaintiff will bar recovery entirely.

Defense 4: Assumption of Risk

Plaintiff assumed the risk of the alleged injuries by voluntarily engaging in [________________________________] with knowledge and appreciation of the attendant dangers. See ADM P'ship v. Martin, 348 Md. 84, 702 A.2d 730 (1997).

Defense 5: Accord and Satisfaction

Plaintiff's claims have been satisfied, in whole or in part, by a prior accord and satisfaction. Md. Rule 2-323(g).

Defense 6: Payment and Release

Plaintiff's claims are barred by payment, release, or discharge. Md. Rule 2-323(g).

Defense 7: Waiver and Estoppel

Plaintiff waived and/or is estopped from asserting the claims set forth in the Complaint due to Plaintiff's conduct, statements, and/or course of dealing. Md. Rule 2-323(g).

Defense 8: Laches

Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches, as Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in asserting these claims, resulting in prejudice to Defendant.

Defense 9: Fraud

Plaintiff's claims are barred or diminished by Plaintiff's own fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment.

Defense 10: Illegality

The transaction or agreement upon which Plaintiff's claims are based is illegal and/or against public policy, rendering it unenforceable.

Defense 11: Statute of Frauds

The alleged agreement or obligation is unenforceable under the applicable statute of frauds. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-901 et seq.

Defense 12: Failure of Consideration

The alleged obligation lacks adequate consideration, or consideration has failed.

Defense 13: Unclean Hands

Plaintiff's own inequitable conduct bars or limits recovery under the doctrine of unclean hands.

Defense 14: Set-Off and Recoupment

Defendant is entitled to set-off and/or recoupment against any amounts that may be awarded to Plaintiff.

Defense 15: Failure to Mitigate Damages

Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages, and any recovery should be reduced accordingly.

Defense 16: Collateral Estoppel / Res Judicata

Plaintiff's claims, or issues necessarily decided in prior proceedings, are barred by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.

Defense 17: Privilege

Defendant's conduct was privileged under applicable law, including but not limited to [________________________________].

Defense 18: Later-Discovered Defense Review

No omitted defense is preserved merely by this paragraph. If investigation or discovery supports another defense, counsel must determine whether and how the current rules permit amendment and seek any required leave or order.

VI. NEGATIVE AVERMENTS UNDER RULE 2-323(f)

Rule 2-323(f) requires a negative averment, with supporting particulars peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge, to contest any complaint averment concerning:

1. The legal existence of a party, including a partnership or corporation;
2. A party's capacity to sue or be sued;
3. A party's authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity;
4. Execution of a written instrument; or
5. Ownership of a motor vehicle.

☐ No Rule 2-323(f) issue is raised.

☐ Defendant raises the following negative averment with supporting particulars: [________________________________].

If not raised by negative averment, these matters are admitted for purposes of the pending action. Do not use Rule 2-323(f) as a general preservation clause.

VII. COUNTERCLAIMS

(Select one)

☐ None at this time. Defendant does not assert a counterclaim at this time but reserves the right to do so if facts warranting a counterclaim are discovered during the course of this litigation.

☐ Counterclaim asserted. Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-331, Defendant asserts the following counterclaim(s) against Plaintiff:

COUNT I — [________________________________]

1. [________________________________]

2. [________________________________]

3. [________________________________]

WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment against Plaintiff on the counterclaim in the amount of $[________________________________], plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees as permitted by law.

VIII. CROSS-CLAIMS

(Select one)

☐ Not applicable. There are no co-defendants against whom a cross-claim is asserted.

☐ Cross-claim asserted. Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-331(b), Defendant asserts the following cross-claim(s) against [________________________________]:

1. [________________________________]

2. [________________________________]

IX. JURY DEMAND

(Select one)

☐ Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-325.

☐ Defendant does not demand a jury trial at this time but reserves the right to do so within the time permitted by Md. Rule 2-325.

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice;

B. Enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all claims;

C. Enter judgment in favor of Defendant on any counterclaim asserted herein;

D. Award Defendant costs of suit, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees as permitted by law or contract;

E. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and

F. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

XI. LATER-AMENDMENT CONTROL

This Answer does not purport to preserve an omitted defense, claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim merely by reservation. Before seeking to add or change a matter, counsel should identify:

1. The newly discovered facts and supporting evidence: [________________________________];
2. The proposed defense, claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim: [________________________________];
3. The current rule, deadline, scheduling order, and prejudice analysis: [________________________________]; and
4. Any consent, leave, or court order required before filing: [________________________________].

SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________] (Firm Name)
[________________________________] (Street Address)
[________________________________], Maryland [____]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Facsimile: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

By: ________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney Number (AIS): [________________________________]
Attorney for Defendant [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [____] day of [________________________________], [____], a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer, General Denial, and Affirmative Defenses was served upon the following by:

☐ MDEC electronic service

☐ First-class mail, postage prepaid

☐ Hand delivery

☐ Email (with consent of recipient)

upon:

[________________________________]
[________________________________] (Firm Name)
[________________________________] (Street Address)
[________________________________], Maryland [____]
[________________________________] (Email)
Counsel for Plaintiff

________________________________________
[________________________________]

MDEC RESTRICTED-INFORMATION CERTIFICATION

Complete for an MDEC filing under Rules 20-201(h) and 20-201.1:

☐ I certify that this Answer contains no restricted information.

☐ This Answer contains restricted information. I have marked the filing accordingly and am submitting the required Notice Regarding Restricted Information (Form MDJ-008) and any required redacted version.

________________________________________
[Signature of filer]

MARYLAND PROCEDURAL REFERENCE GUIDE

(For attorney reference — remove before filing)

Key Deadlines

General Denial Checklist

☐ Is the action for breach of contract, debt, or tort?

☐ Is the claim for relief for money only?

☐ If yes to both for a particular count, a general denial of that count under Md. Rule 2-323(d) is permitted.

☐ Use paragraph-by-paragraph responses under Md. Rule 2-323(c) for every count not eligible for a general denial, including a count seeking equitable or injunctive relief.

Affirmative Defenses Enumerated in Md. Rule 2-323(g)

Rule 2-323(g) directs the following to be set forth as separate defenses. Counsel should determine waiver, preservation, and amendment consequences under all applicable rules and law:

1. Accord and satisfaction
2. Merger of a claim by arbitration into an award
3. Assumption of risk
4. Collateral estoppel as a defense to a claim
5. Contributory negligence
6. Duress
7. Estoppel
8. Fraud
9. Illegality
10. Laches
11. Payment
12. Release
13. Res judicata
14. Statute of frauds
15. Statute of limitations
16. Ultra vires
17. Usury
18. Waiver
19. Privilege
20. Total or partial charitable immunity

Other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense on legal or equitable grounds: [________________________________]

Maryland Contributory Negligence Note

If asserting contributory negligence, identify the claimant conduct, its causal effect, the counts to which the defense applies, and any exception under current controlling authority. Do not treat a percentage alone as a complete defense analysis.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Maryland Rules, Title 2 — Civil Procedure — Circuit Court: https://www.courts.state.md.us/rules
• Maryland Rule 2-321 — Time for Filing Answer
• Maryland Rule 2-322 — Preliminary Motions
• Maryland Rule 2-323 — Answers (including General Denial and Affirmative Defenses)
• Maryland Rule 2-325 — Jury Trial
• Maryland Rule 2-331 — Counterclaim and Cross-Claim
• Maryland Rule 2-341 — Amendment of Pleadings
• Maryland Affirmative Defenses Under Rule 2-323(g): https://www.millerandzois.com/professional-attorney-information-center/pre-trial/sample-pleadings/affirmative-defenses-in-maryland/
• Responding to a Complaint: Maryland (Kramon & Graham): https://www.kramonandgraham.com/siteFiles/News/Responding%20to%20a%20Complaint%20Maryland.pdf
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 et seq. — Statutes of Limitation
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-102 — General personal jurisdiction; § 6-103 — Long-arm jurisdiction
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-201 et seq. — Venue
• MDEC Electronic Filing: https://mdcourts.gov/mdec
• Harrison v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983) — Contributory negligence
• ADM P'ship v. Martin, 348 Md. 84, 702 A.2d 730 (1997) — Assumption of risk