Opinion ID: 1183292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A summary judgment

Text: shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.    Rule 56(c), W.R.C.P. The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate formal trials where only questions of law are involved, Johnson v. Soulis, Wyo., 542 P.2d 867, 871 (1975), and to pierce the formal allegations and reach the merits of a controversy where no material issue of fact is present, Siebert v. Fowler, Wyo., 637 P.2d 255, 258 (1981). Where there are genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment is improper; but the purpose behind summary judgment would be defeated if a case could be forced to trial merely by asserting that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Johnson v. Soulis, supra. When a motion for summary judgment is granted and appealed to this court, we have the same duty as did the district court judge. We review the same material and apply the same standards. The propriety of granting a motion for summary judgment depends upon the correctness of the court's dual findings that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This court looks at the record from the viewpoint most favorable to the party who is opposing the motion and gives to him all favorable inferences to be drawn from the facts contained in affidavits, depositions and other proper material appearing in the record. Roth v. First Security Bank of Rock Springs, Wyo., 684 P.2d 93, 95 (1984). The elements of a claim for relief for fraud are a false representation made by the defendant which is relied upon by the plaintiff to his damage, the asserted false representation must be made to induce action, and the plaintiff must reasonably believe the representation to be true. Anderson v. Foothill Industrial Bank, Wyo., 674 P.2d 232, 238 (1984). A plaintiff who alleges fraud must do so clearly and distinctly, and fraud will not be imputed to any party when the facts and circumstances out of which it is alleged to arise are consistent with honesty and purity of intention. Reed v. Owen, Wyo., 523 P.2d 869, 871 (1974). Fraud must be established by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, and will never be presumed. Kincheloe v. Milatzo, Wyo., 678 P.2d 855, 862 (1984). The elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim are generally recognized to be as follows: False information supplied in the course of one's business for the guidance of others in their business, failure to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or relating the information, and pecuniary loss resulting from justifiable reliance thereon. Restatement of Torts (Second) § 552, p. 126 (1977). It is clear from the record that a showing of fraud or negligent misrepresentation was not made by clear and convincing evidence. By his deposition, plaintiff could not designate the factual basis for his fraud claim. He testified: Q (By Mr. Moyer) Do you have any belief or evidence to the effect that Art never intended to let you do the whole project right from the beginning; that he always intended to just let you do one building? A You wonder about things. Q Do you have anything beyond wondering or speculation to indicate that he intended right from the beginning to defraud you? MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about any indication at any time? MR. MOYER: Any indication at the beginning that his intent was to defraud you. A He didn't perform to the agreement that we had. Q (By Mr. Moyer) Did you have any indication that he never intended to right from the beginning? A Not from the beginning. I'm wondering about the number now, but I'm not a lawyer. Q So you think that because he had entered this language that he might have intended right from the beginning to be limiting you to one building, is that correct? A I never felt that way until just recently, and now I'm concerned about it. Q (By Mr. Moyer) Would you say that was a misunderstanding or are you saying that he actually tried to deceive you at that time? A I wouldn't know. Q Do you have any evidence based on his conduct since the date you signed this agreement, any evidence to the effect that he never intended to let you do more than one building, other than the fact that he didn't give you the second building? A Yes, I think so. Q What is that evidence? A A conversation I had with Jeff Brown. Q What was the conversation? A He said that it had been going on for some time, that they would perhaps get rid of me.      Q Do you have any other evidence whatsoever to indicate that Art, right from the beginning, didn't intend to give you the whole project and tried to deceive you into thinking that you did have the whole project? A I don't really understand what evidence really is. I had a contract that covered the entire project and I don't no longer, apparently, in Mr. Brown's view. Q (By Mr. Moyer) And in your view, that contract has been breached, is that right, by Mr. Brown? A No longer, I'm not out there working.       A    The only thing I'm convinced of is that Mr. Brown did not hold up to his agreement. It is clear from plaintiff's deposition testimony that there was no basis for the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims other than the fact that plaintiff believed he had a contract for the entire project, and defendant believed otherwise. The dispute was over interpretation of the contract, nothing more. Furthermore, defendant submitted an affidavit wherein he stated: 6. Any representation or statements made by the undersigned to the plaintiff in connection with the contractual arrangements with the plaintiff were made in good faith and were not false or misleading, the undersigned had no intent to defraud or deceive plaintiff, and the undersigned did not enter into any contract with plaintiff, on behalf of the owner or otherwise, with the intent to fail to perform that contract. The motion for a summary judgment was properly granted on the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims for relief.