. Mаrk Sindecuse appeals an adverse grant of summary judgment on his Missouri common law fraud claim against Dean Katsaros and CIB Marine Banc-shares, Inc. We affirm the judgment of the district court. 1
I.
Sindecuse purchased stock from CIB in private sales from 1995 to 1998, at prices of over $1,000 per share. Katsaros was Sindecuse’s accountant and a director of CIB. Sindecuse alleges that as the stock price declined in 2003, he asked Katsaros and CIB to find a buyer for his stock, but they did not do so. Sindecuse then sued Katsaros, Katsaros’s accounting firm, and CIB in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging fraud and other causes of action. At the time he filed the complaint, Sindecuse still ownеd the stock, which was trading at $5 per share.
Sindecuse asserts that Katsaros guaranteed that Sindecuse would be able to sell his stoсk within twenty-four hours whenever he wanted to do so. Sindecuse’s initial allegation in this suit was different. His complaint alleged that Katsaros had promised that CIB would buy back Sindecuse’s shares whenever he wanted to sell them. At his deposition, Sindecuse initially repeated this allegation, [App. 69], but upon cross-examination, Sindecuse admitted that Katsaros had never stated that CIB would purchase the shares. Instead, Sin-decuse testified that Katsaros had promised him that CIB would help him sell his shares, and assured him that there would certainly be buyers available.
At his deposition, Katsaros denied that he ever told Sindecuse that he or the bank would “ensure that he could get out” if Sindecuse wanted to sell his stock. He admitted that such a statement would have been false, because he “would not ensure, nor could the bank ensure” that they could “get him out.” Katsaros also admitted that he knew this when Sindecuse purchased the stock. When asked if CIB would have forbidden him to make such a representation, Katsaros responded: “I’m not sure if anybody ever told me it was not allowed. It wasn’t a statement thаt had any kind of logic to it. None of us could do that.” Katsaros acknowledged that “it just couldn’t be done.”
*803 The district court, applying Missouri law, dismissed several claims, and granted summary judgment for the defendants on all remaining claims. Regarding Sinde-cuse’s fraud claim against Katsaros and CIB, the court ruled that Sindecuse had not presented any evidence that Katsaros did not intend to keep his alleged promise whеn it was made. Sindecuse appeals from the judgment on this claim only.
II.
We review the district court’s decision
de novo,
while granting Sindecuse, the non-movant, the benefit of all reasonаble inferences from the evidence without resort to speculation.
Johnson v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co.,
To establish fraud under Missouri law, Sindecuse must show that Kat-saros made a misrepresentation concerning a past or existing fact.
Trotter’s Corp. v. Ringleader Rests.,
Sindecuse alleges that Katsaros guaranteed that he would be able to sell his stock. He argues that there is a genuine issue for trial, because, according to Sindecuse, Katsaros’s testimony that he could not make such a guarantee indicates that Katsaros’s representation was false when mаde. If Sindecuse’s testimony is believed, however, Katsaros’s guarantee consisted of (1) a promise to perform a future act, аnd (2) a prediction about the future. Katsaros allegedly promised Sin-decuse that he would facilitate a sale between Sindeсuse and a buyer, and predicted that there would always be a willing buyer. The prediction was the key statement, because without a willing buyer, Katsaros’s promise to facilitate a sale was useless.
Katsaros’s alleged prediction that there would always be a buyеr for Sindecuse’s stock fits comfortably within the Missouri rule that predictions cannot support a fraud claim. In
Ev/reka Pipe,
a case presenting a similar fact pattern, the plaintiffs relied on repeated assurances from a bond and insurance broker, Ritchey, that he would bе able to secure a bond necessary to their business.
Katsaros’s promise to facilitate a sale to a buyer also cannot support a fraud claim. A party’s promise to take future
*804
action may be a misrepresentation of an existing fact, and thus actionаble as fraud, but only if it is accompanied by a present intention not to perform.
Trotter’s Corp.,
For thesе reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, presiding with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).