Claim under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA) (MCL 565.951 et seq.); MCL 565.954(3) & (4); MCL 565.961; Roberts v. Saffell; Common-law fraud; Christy v. Prestige Builders, Inc.; M & D, Inc. v. McConkey; Foreman v. Foreman; Libralter Plastics, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos.; Silent-fraud; Lucas v. Awaad; Personal representative (PR)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendants on plaintiffs’ claim under the SDA or on their claims for silent-fraud and common-law fraud. Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging violations of the SDA, common-law fraud, and silent-fraud claiming the PR failed to disclose a variety of issues with the home. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred when it held the SDA did not create an independent cause of action, noting “the SDA does not create an independent cause of action but instead relies on common-law causes of action in fraud to operate as the SDA-enforcement mechanisms.” It also rejected their common-law fraud claim, noting the PR’s silence simply could not “be interpreted as a material representation, regardless of plaintiffs’ insistence otherwise.” Moreover, there were “several factual problems” with this claim. At best, “plaintiffs have demonstrated that [the PR] quickly and incompletely filled out the SDS without learning about conditions on the property . . . .” Finally, the court rejected their silent-fraud claim, noting it failed for the same reasons as their common-law fraud claim. They “failed to offer proof that [the PR] suppressed the truth about the conditions . . . with an intent to defraud plaintiffs.” It was clear from the PR’s affidavit “that she had lived out of state and knew practically nothing about the home.” Plaintiffs failed to depose her “and her affidavit remain[ed] uncontested.” Affirmed.