Elmer and Sharon Willhite appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MainSource Bank (“MainSource”) in this action for mortgage foreclosure. On appeal, the Willhites raise three issues, which we consolidate and restate as: 1) whether the trial court applied the proper standard of review; and 2) whether the trial court erred when it determined that no genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to the Willhites‟ fraud claims.
Conclusion (slip op. at 12): No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding MainSource’s foreclosure action or the Willhites’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims of fraud in the inducement and constructive fraud. Therefore, MainSource is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in its favor. Affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 8, 11-12): The Willhites have failed to designate any evidence demonstrating that King misstated terms of the promissory note and mortgages or attempted to prevent them from understanding those terms prior to signing . . . the Willhites have failed to designate evidence that they relied on the misrepresentations by King in deciding to purchase the Serenity apartments because they had already signed the purchase agreement with Morgan prior to discussing the matter with King