Effect of a merger clause; UAW-GM Human Resource Ctr v KSL Recreation Corp; Fraud in the inducement to enter a contract; Custom Data Sols, Inc v Preferred Capital, Inc; Whether summary disposition was premature due to incomplete discovery; Attorney fees; Frivolous claim or defense; MCR 1.109(E)(7); MCR 2.625(A)(2); MCL 600.2591; A trial court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions for misconduct; Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD)

In these consolidated appeals, the court held in one appeal that the trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition of plaintiffs’ fraud claims related to a lease. In the other appeal, it held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff-church attorney fees. The case arose after defendant-DPSCD leased property formerly used as a school to plaintiffs. On appeal, plaintiffs argued in Docket No. 371359 that the trial court prematurely granted defendants summary disposition of the fraud claims because discovery was incomplete. The court first noted that their “bare assertion” was insufficient to survive summary disposition. They “were required to ‘clearly identify the disputed issue for which [they] assert[ed] discovery must be conducted and support the issue with independent evidence.’” Given that they did not do so, they failed to satisfy “their burden of establishing that the trial court’s grant of summary disposition was premature.” In addition, in the absence of any “evidence of fraudulent inducement, the merger clause in the 2018 lease agreement remained in effect and barred any parol evidence of other alleged fraud.” Thus, further discovery would not have affected the outcome of defendants’ summary disposition motion. In Docket No. 371983, DPSCD appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the church related to its contract breach claim. The court held that the “trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney fees on the basis of general equitable principles instead of sanctionable misconduct.” It failed to “identify a violation of any court rule, statute, or order that would constitute the misconduct required to impose a sanction.” The court affirmed in Docket No. 371359 but in Docket No. 371983 it vacated the award of attorney fees and remanded.