trusts-and-estates
Interpretation of &quot;the document speaks for itself&quot; in answer to a complaint?
<p>I've got a question about the complaint/answer process in the context of Maryland regarding a Trust.   (Names changed for privacy)</p>

<p>The complaint included as a numbered averment:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="19">
  <li>The Trust instrument, at the first article, paragraph B, also states that “Grantor and others may add other property to the Trust from time to time.” Defendant Doe in the Trust’s accounting statements incorrectly states that all financial assets previously owned by
  Grantor were transferred to and are now owned by the Trust. Notwithstanding the representations made in Defendant Doe’s accounting statements, she never transferred to the Trust Grantor's investment and retirement accounts with a value of approximately
  $$$,$$$.00.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>In the answer from Defendant, this appeared:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="19">
  <li>Defendant responds to the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the Complaint by stating that the document speaks for itself.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>How is this answer supposed to be interpreted?   I.E. is it an effectively an admission?</p>

<p><strong>Supplemental Details</strong></p>

<p>In the context, <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N57CB19509CEA11DB9BCF9DAC28345A2A?contextData=(sc.Default)&amp;transitionType=Default" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MD Rule 2-323. ANSWER</a> seems to control.   The reason I suspect it may be effectively an admission is in paragraph (e), which addresses the effect of a Failure to Deny.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Interpretation of “the document speaks for itself” in answer to a
  complaint?</p>
  
  <p>is it an effectively an admission?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily, although it does seem odd to answer in those terms an assertion that, in addition to quoting a document, attributes to the defendant specific omissions.</p>

<p>The responsive pleading may be an odd way of positing that the excerpt in paragraph 19 of the complaint differs from the actual terms of the instrument. It could also be intended to convey that the citation of the excerpt is pointless and inconsequential.</p>
