Fraudulent misrepresentation; Bergen v Baker; Principle that a party opposing a motion for summary disposition must present more than conjecture & speculation; Cloverleaf Car Co v Phillips Petroleum Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants summary disposition of plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs purchased a property and then sued defendants for the condition of the property. On appeal, the court agreed with the trial court’s ruling. It noted that plaintiffs claimed there were material questions of fact that precluded summary disposition, but they “presented no evidence to show that any defendant made any false representation. After defendants moved for summary disposition, demonstrating that there was no genuine question of material fact, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed. Plaintiffs provided nothing to the trial court to establish any question of fact.” Although they “alleged that the property had been condemned at one point and that [it] had an actual value of $20,000, they failed to support these assertions with any evidence. The only evidence related to the property’s value was the appraisal estimating the value at $200,000.” Likewise, on appeal, “plaintiffs cursorily assert that there are material questions, without specifying what evidence there is to create such questions.” Affirmed.