Opinion ID: 901495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Weitzel's fraud claim for lack of sufficient probative evidence.

Text: [¶ 42.] The circuit court dismissed Weitzel's claim for fraud under SDCL 53-4-5 and deceit under SDCL 20-10-1 for failure to substantiate his allegations of fraud and deceit with sufficient probative evidence to show that [SVH] made a promise of employment without an intention of performing. Weitzel argues that the circuit court erred in its dismissal of the claim, as sufficient evidence was brought forward to submit the claim to a jury. [¶ 43.] SDCL 53-4-5 provides in relevant part: Actual fraud in relation to contracts consists of any of the following acts committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto or to induce him to enter into the contract: ... (4) A promise made without any intention of performing it[.] SDCL 20-10-1 provides: [o]ne who willfully deceives another, with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers. [¶ 44.] In order to survive a motion for summary judgment on the claim of fraud and deceit, Weitzel, as the nonmoving party, was required to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See SDCL 15-6-56(e). The nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings. Stanga v. Husman, 2005 SD 36, ¶13, 694 NW2d 716, 720 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(e)). It is not sufficient for the nonmoving party to present evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citing Estate of Elliott v. A & B Welding Supply Co., Inc., 1999 SD 57, ¶16, 594 NW2d 707, 710). Proof of a mere possibility is never sufficient to establish a fact. Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 SD 10, ¶12, 620 NW2d 775, 779 (quoting Estate of Elliott, 1999 SD 57, ¶16, 594 NW2d at 710). [¶ 45.] Weitzel contends that the two SVH administrators with hiring authority, Nickell and Krabbenhoft, were aware in February 2000, five months before the July 14, 2000, Agreement was signed, of the abrasive personality characteristics exhibited by and conflicts created by Weitzel. Next, Weitzel notes that the only reasons given by Nickell and other SVH witnesses in deposition for his dismissal were his abrasive personality and past conflicts. Therefore, Weitzel contends this knowledge of his character and conflicts constituted sufficient evidence to show that SVH did not intend to allow Weitzel to return to employment at SVH at the time the July 14, 2000, Agreement was signed. [¶ 46.] Weitzel's argument must fail, as there was one fact unknown to Nickell and Krabbenhoft at the time the July 14, 2000, Agreement was signed. It was not until late January or early February 2001 that the SVH heart program physicians expressed their desire to Nickell that Weitzel not return. Nickell and Krabbenhoft were aware of discord between Weitzel and several referring physicians and nursing staff at SVH. However, neither Nickell nor Krabbenhoft were aware of the level of discontent among the SVH heart program physicians with Weitzel's anticipated return when the July 14, 2000, Agreement was signed. [¶ 47.] There is nothing in the record to suggest that Nickell or Krabbenhoft intended to enter into the contract for Weitzel's return without an intention to perform. Nickell stated in his deposition that his most important consideration once he was informed of the feelings and desires of the other heart program physicians was to protect and grow SVH's fledgling heart program. Nickell then left it up to Patrick to resolve the contract issues with Weitzel. Deposition testimony, the letter from the heart program clinic managers on behalf of the physicians to SVH administration dated February 28, 2001, and Weitzel's brief all indicate that the level of dissatisfaction among the heart group physicians was revealed while Weitzel was away at his fellowship. [¶ 48.] There are no disputed facts within the record as to when Weitzel demonstrated an abrasive character and inappropriate patient and staff interaction. There is also no dispute in the record as to when the heart physicians' desire to not have Weitzel return was revealed to Nickell and Krabbenhoft. Therefore, the circuit court did not err when it granted SVH's motion for summary judgment on the claim of fraud and deceit. [¶ 49.] On Issue 1, we affirm the trial court on the existence of an employment contract but we reverse and remand for trial on the issue of a purported breach of that contract. We also reverse and remand for trial on Issue 2, as to Weitzel's obligations under the demand notes. We affirm the circuit court on Issue 3. [¶ 50.] KONENKAMP, ZINTER and MEIERHENRY, Justices, and ENG, Circuit Judge, concur. [¶ 51.] ENG, Circuit Judge, sitting for SABERS, Justice, disqualified.