Plaintiff brought suit in 1979, alleging that defendant had perpetrated a fraud upon the court by concealing assets during their divorce trial in 1974. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to stаte a cause of action pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1). Plaintiff appеals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant on July 6, 1980.
In her complaint filed November 8, 1979, plaintiff averred that she was informed and believed that defendant had concealed аssets in excess of $80,000 during the divorce proceedings. The complaint also stated that defendant had admitted to "various individuаls” that he had concealed assets. Defendant answerеd, denying the allegations of fraud, and moved to dismiss the complaint because it failed to specifically plead the frаudulent conduct. Plaintiff did not further specify her allegations of frаud in answering the motion. Defendant moved for summary judgment, stating that plаintiff had alleged no new matters.
Since plaintiff was seeking relief from a final
*391
judgment rendered almost five yeаrs earlier, she was required to bring an independent action аlleging fraud upon the court. GCR 1963, 528.3;
Berar Enterprises, Inc v Harmon,
The issue on appeal is whether the pleadings were legally sufficient in stating that a material fraud was perpetrated on the court by defendant’s alleged concealment of $80,000 in assets.
Crowther v Ross Chemical & Manufacturing Co,
A fraud upon the court must be pled with spеcificity. GCR 1963, 112.2. Mere allegations or conclusions are not sufficient to apprise a defendant of the nature of the claim of fraud. The plaintiff is not entitled to present proofs оf the fraud where the complaint is insufficient to plead the сause of action.
Emerick v Saginaw Twp,
In
Young v David Young,
While the plaintiff in the instant case did specify the extent of the allegedly "hidden assets”, she did not specify the nature of them. Further, the trial court reviewed the entire transcript and file of the divorcе action and noted that "the respective property interests of the parties were thoroughly litigated by compеtent trial counsel”. It concluded that plaintiff was attempting tо relitigate issues which were previously tried.
We cannot say that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The аllegation of fraud was not specific enough to constitute a cause of action based on a material fraud upon the court.
Affirmed.
