COOK, Circuit Judge.
Jacqulyn Tubbs1 appeals pro re from an adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity action for breach of implied contract.
Appellee Tami Woodworth Salens, Ancillary and Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith George Church, deceased, filed a complaint against Tubbs claiming breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and conditional gift, seeking monetary and declaratory relief. The district court initially denied Tubbs’s motion for summary judgment, but later modified its order following supplemental briefing, granting summary judgment in part to the Estate and in part to Tubbs. Thereafter, the district court entered a judgment resolving all of the claims in the litigation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
I.
Appellee’s decedent, Keith George Church, a citizen of the United Kingdom, and Tubbs, a Michigan resident, began communicating over the Internet in the fall of 1999. Thereafter, Church and Tubbs developed a long-distance relationship built on written correspondence, tele[440]*440phone contacts, and several in-person visits. Church and Tubbs became engaged in February 2000, planning to be married in Las Vegas in July 2000. Two months before the engagement, Church paid off $4,100 of Tubbs’s credit card debt. He also gave Tubbs an engagement ring that he purchased for $7,274.42 in February 2000. On March 15, 2000, he deposited $194,852.56 in Tubbs’s bank account to fund the purchase of land and a residential home located at 3865 S. Sandusky Road, Peck, Michigan. Tubbs testified that she did not supply any money for the purchase of the home and that Church instructed her to place title in both of their names. In April 2000, the real property was conveyed to “Keith G. Church, a single man and Jacqulyn J. Tubbs, a single woman as joint tenants.” Church later delivered certain personal belongings to the Michigan home, including a family heirloom diamond ring worth $4,560. Tubbs moved into the home in April 2000.
On June 5, 2000, Tubbs e-mailed Church stating that their relationship was over and that the rings and paperwork on the house were in her attorney’s possession. According to Tubbs, she was horrified after seeing Church’s “bizarre and abnormal behavior” on the Internet. He led a “risque lifestyle as a cross[-]dresser and bisexual.” (Appellant’s Br. 2) Tubbs rejected Church’s demands to repay the $4,100 and to return the engagement ring, his personal property, and her interest in the Michigan home. On July 24, 2000, Church died in England.
Over four years later, Church’s Estate filed a diversity suit seeking to recover the property Tubbs refused to return. Tubbs moved for summary judgment, and the district court denied her motion, prompting responsive supplemental briefing. Thereafter, the district court entered an amended order granting summary judgment sua sponte, in part to the Estate and in part to Tubbs. Because this amended order left the claim for damages unresolved, this court rejected as premature an appeal of that non-final order. Following an off-record telephone conference with counsel for both parties, the court entered a final judgment entitling the Estate to: the rings or a money judgment for their values; the real property, partitioned as a matter of law to account for its appreciation; complete right, title, interest, and possession of the land and residential home, free and clear1 of any claim, right, title, or interest of Tubbs; and a money judgment in the amount of $75,000 (the amount of Tubbs’s home equity mortgage), less credits to Tubbs of $13,000 for property taxes she paid from 2000 through 2005, or a modified money judgment in the amount of $62,000. The district court ruled that under the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction, it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether a provision of Church’s will released the alleged $4,100 debt; the court therefore granted summary judgment to Tubbs for this claim. This appeal followed.
II.
For her pro se appellate arguments, Tubbs says that the district court only considered when the gifts were made, ignoring Church’s misconduct during the engagement and after the relationship was over. Church’s responsibility for the broken engagement, she reasons, should preclude his estate from recovering the gifts and home. She also denies any express or implied contract between Church and her for repayment or return of the property if the marriage did not take place.
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Sigler v. [441]*441Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 482 (6th Cir.2008). Summary judgment is proper where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
We note that Tubbs does not challenge the district court’s procedural decision to enter summary judgment for the Estate sua sponte. If she had, we would find no procedural error because Tubbs had ample notice and opportunity to respond to the prospect of summary judgment. After all, it was she who first moved for summary judgment, setting off a deluge of cross-briefing from the parties. As we have said, granting summary judgment “in favor of an opposing party when one party has made a motion for summary judgment ... may not be as detrimental since the moving party is at least aware that the issue has been raised.” Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Petroleum Specialties, Inc., 69 F.3d 98, 105 (6th Cir.1995). Tubbs filed two briefs even after the district court denied her motion for summary judgment, and the court responded to these arguments with an amended order. Tubbs did not object on either lack-of-notice or opportunity-to-respond grounds. As the only deponent, Tubbs could readily mai’-shal the evidence and address all the issues considered by the court, so the court acted well within its discretion in deciding to grant summary judgment against her and for the Estate.
B. Engagement Ring
Tubbs received a $7,274.42 engagement ring from Church, but testified that she no longer possessed it; she “threw it over the bridge in Elk Creek River.”
Tubbs acknowledges that Michigan law categorizes engagement rings as conditional gifts, rather than outright gifts, because of their symbolic weight. In Meyer v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COOK, Circuit Judge.
Jacqulyn Tubbs1 appeals pro re from an adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity action for breach of implied contract.
Appellee Tami Woodworth Salens, Ancillary and Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith George Church, deceased, filed a complaint against Tubbs claiming breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and conditional gift, seeking monetary and declaratory relief. The district court initially denied Tubbs’s motion for summary judgment, but later modified its order following supplemental briefing, granting summary judgment in part to the Estate and in part to Tubbs. Thereafter, the district court entered a judgment resolving all of the claims in the litigation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
I.
Appellee’s decedent, Keith George Church, a citizen of the United Kingdom, and Tubbs, a Michigan resident, began communicating over the Internet in the fall of 1999. Thereafter, Church and Tubbs developed a long-distance relationship built on written correspondence, tele[440]*440phone contacts, and several in-person visits. Church and Tubbs became engaged in February 2000, planning to be married in Las Vegas in July 2000. Two months before the engagement, Church paid off $4,100 of Tubbs’s credit card debt. He also gave Tubbs an engagement ring that he purchased for $7,274.42 in February 2000. On March 15, 2000, he deposited $194,852.56 in Tubbs’s bank account to fund the purchase of land and a residential home located at 3865 S. Sandusky Road, Peck, Michigan. Tubbs testified that she did not supply any money for the purchase of the home and that Church instructed her to place title in both of their names. In April 2000, the real property was conveyed to “Keith G. Church, a single man and Jacqulyn J. Tubbs, a single woman as joint tenants.” Church later delivered certain personal belongings to the Michigan home, including a family heirloom diamond ring worth $4,560. Tubbs moved into the home in April 2000.
On June 5, 2000, Tubbs e-mailed Church stating that their relationship was over and that the rings and paperwork on the house were in her attorney’s possession. According to Tubbs, she was horrified after seeing Church’s “bizarre and abnormal behavior” on the Internet. He led a “risque lifestyle as a cross[-]dresser and bisexual.” (Appellant’s Br. 2) Tubbs rejected Church’s demands to repay the $4,100 and to return the engagement ring, his personal property, and her interest in the Michigan home. On July 24, 2000, Church died in England.
Over four years later, Church’s Estate filed a diversity suit seeking to recover the property Tubbs refused to return. Tubbs moved for summary judgment, and the district court denied her motion, prompting responsive supplemental briefing. Thereafter, the district court entered an amended order granting summary judgment sua sponte, in part to the Estate and in part to Tubbs. Because this amended order left the claim for damages unresolved, this court rejected as premature an appeal of that non-final order. Following an off-record telephone conference with counsel for both parties, the court entered a final judgment entitling the Estate to: the rings or a money judgment for their values; the real property, partitioned as a matter of law to account for its appreciation; complete right, title, interest, and possession of the land and residential home, free and clear1 of any claim, right, title, or interest of Tubbs; and a money judgment in the amount of $75,000 (the amount of Tubbs’s home equity mortgage), less credits to Tubbs of $13,000 for property taxes she paid from 2000 through 2005, or a modified money judgment in the amount of $62,000. The district court ruled that under the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction, it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether a provision of Church’s will released the alleged $4,100 debt; the court therefore granted summary judgment to Tubbs for this claim. This appeal followed.
II.
For her pro se appellate arguments, Tubbs says that the district court only considered when the gifts were made, ignoring Church’s misconduct during the engagement and after the relationship was over. Church’s responsibility for the broken engagement, she reasons, should preclude his estate from recovering the gifts and home. She also denies any express or implied contract between Church and her for repayment or return of the property if the marriage did not take place.
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Sigler v. [441]*441Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 482 (6th Cir.2008). Summary judgment is proper where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
We note that Tubbs does not challenge the district court’s procedural decision to enter summary judgment for the Estate sua sponte. If she had, we would find no procedural error because Tubbs had ample notice and opportunity to respond to the prospect of summary judgment. After all, it was she who first moved for summary judgment, setting off a deluge of cross-briefing from the parties. As we have said, granting summary judgment “in favor of an opposing party when one party has made a motion for summary judgment ... may not be as detrimental since the moving party is at least aware that the issue has been raised.” Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Petroleum Specialties, Inc., 69 F.3d 98, 105 (6th Cir.1995). Tubbs filed two briefs even after the district court denied her motion for summary judgment, and the court responded to these arguments with an amended order. Tubbs did not object on either lack-of-notice or opportunity-to-respond grounds. As the only deponent, Tubbs could readily mai’-shal the evidence and address all the issues considered by the court, so the court acted well within its discretion in deciding to grant summary judgment against her and for the Estate.
B. Engagement Ring
Tubbs received a $7,274.42 engagement ring from Church, but testified that she no longer possessed it; she “threw it over the bridge in Elk Creek River.”
Tubbs acknowledges that Michigan law categorizes engagement rings as conditional gifts, rather than outright gifts, because of their symbolic weight. In Meyer v. Mitnick, 244 Mich.App. 697, 625 N.W.2d 136 (2001), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that “[bjecause the engagement ring is a conditional gift, when the condition is not fulfilled the ring or its value should be returned to the donor no matter who broke the engagement or caused it to be broken.” Id. at 139. That is, a “determination of who owns the engagement ring following termination of the engagement does not require a determination of which party was at fault.” Id. at 137. The district court thus properly determined that the Estate is entitled to recover the engagement ring or its $7,274.42 value from Tubbs as a matter of Michigan law.
C. Real Property
Tubbs correctly observes that the Michigan courts have not yet decided whether conditional gift principles apply to real property conveyances. In diversity cases, the federal court must apply state law in accordance with the controlling decisions of the state’s highest court. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). If the state’s highest court has not addressed the issue, the federal court must attempt to ascertain how that court would rule if it were faced with the issue. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. SST Fitness Corp., 309 F.3d 914, 917 (6th [442]*442Cir.2002) (citing Grantham & Mann, Inc. v. Am. Safety Prods., Inc., 831 F.2d 596, 608 (6th Cir.1987)). The federal court looks to all available data, including the decisional law of the state’s lower courts, the majority rule of other jurisdictions, restatements of law, and law review commentaries in making this determination. Id.
Predicting how the Michigan Supreme Court would rule if it were faced with the issue, the district court held:
Consistent with Meyer, Tyranski [v. Piggins, 44 Mich.App. 570, 205 N.W.2d 595, 596-97 (1973) ], and Featherston [v. Steinhoff, 226 Mich.App. 584, 575 N.W.2d 6, 9 (1997) ], as well as the out-of state cases cited by Estate, this court finds that, if faced with the issue, the Michigan Supreme Court would hold that a gift of real property made in contemplation of marriage to the anticipated donee spouse may be enforced as a conditional gift that must be returned to the donor upon proof of an express or implied in fact contract.
Appellant’s JA 199-200.
As the cases cited by the district court confirm, at least three courts have restored the entire property interest to an ex-partner who incurred the full down payment and other initial expenses of home ownership. See Nicholson v. Johnston, 855 A.2d 97 (Pa.Super.Ct.2004) (holding that the down payment and settlement costs paid by one joint tenant of real estate constituted a conditional gift to the other joint tenant, his fiancée, contingent upon a marriage occurring); Fanning v. Iversen, 535 N.W.2d 770 (S.D.1995) (awarding the entire interest in the real estate to the tenant in common who made the full down payment in contemplation of marriage); Aronow v. Silver, 223 N.J.Super. 344, 538 A.2d 851 (N.J.Super.Ct.Ch.Div.1987) (same).
And these cases provide no support for Tubbs’s view that fault ought to bear on the right to retain gifts of real property made in contemplation of marriage. For example, in Aronoiv, a New Jersey court declined to inquire into fault, reasoning: “It does not matter who broke the engagement. A person may have the best reasons in the world for so doing. The important thing is that the gift was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled.” Id. at 852 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court held that upon the termination of an engagement, gifts made in contemplation of a called-off marriage should be returned to the donor; accordingly, it awarded the entire interest in a condominium to a tenant in common who had made the entire down payment in contemplation of marriage. Given the trend of other jurisdictions holding that a gift of real property made in contemplation of marriage to the anticipated donee-spouse is a conditional gift, and Michigan’s no-fault approach to engagement rings, the Michigan Supreme Court could reasonably be expected to extend that approach to other premarital gifts.
The critical question then, as noted by the dissent, is whether Tubbs’s summary judgment evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Church’s gift of the real property created an implied-in-faet contract conditional upon marriage. That is, did Tubbs present any evidence to contradict the Estate’s showing that Church bought the real estate intending her to retain the deeded half-interest only if she married him? Construing the summary judgment evidence in her favor, as we must, we conclude that she did not.
Ample evidence suggests that the gift of the real property was conditioned upon the marriage of Tubbs and Church. Church [443]*443paid the full purchase price, while Tubbs paid nothing. When deposed, Tubbs testified that both she and Church intended the property to serve as a marital home, describing it as “a place for me and [Tubbs’s daughter] and him to live.” Indeed, her testimony consistently referred to the couple living together in the home. One example: “[W]hen we got married, you know, that this was our home and that I was to keep it up.” Appellee’s JA 110. Another is found in an e-mail Tubbs sent Church after they bought the home:
You made the decision to propose to me when you did, and also about buying the home when you did, because it was ... just what we wanted in a home only thing is you had to purchase it right away to get it, or wait to find something else later, and you and I decided this was it. And it is a lovely house and I’m sure we both will be very happy when we do someday move into it and make it our home.
Appellee’s JA 141 (emphasis added).
On the other hand, Tubbs provides little to no evidence that the property was an outright gift. She gains no ground with the argument that Church’s understanding of joint tenancy law—i.e., that property passes to a joint tenant upon the co-tenant’s death—supports her claim of an unconditional gift. At the time the parties specified how the real property was to be titled, Church assumed the marriage would take place.
In disagreeing with the grant of summary judgment, the dissent detects a lingering factual issue from a few equivocal statements in Tubbs’s deposition testimony. The first statement came when counsel for the Estate asked, “Would it be a fair statement to say ... that the placing of the title in your name was conditional upon your marrying him?” Tubbs responded, “Well, we were going to get married, yes.” Appellee’s JA 116. When counsel then used her response in posing his next question: “So, that was a condition of putting your name—,” Tubbs interrupted, “No, it wasn’t a condition. He just wanted my name on it and we, at some point, we were going to get married. But there was no condition. I mean, sure, I planned on marrying him, I loved him.” Appellee’s JA 116.
The dissent reads this exchange as evidence that Church intended to give Tubbs the house as a gift, but we read it as Tubbs stating a legal conclusion—that the property was not a conditional gift—and then undermining that stance with a further elaboration, which paired the joint deed and the intent to marry.
When questioned further by Estate’s counsel, Tubbs not only failed to offer any specific, supporting facts, she essentially retreated:
Q: So, wouldn’t it be a fan- statement to say this was a condition of having your name on the deed?
A: I can’t answer that.
Q: But assuming you weren’t going to marry him, he would not have put your name on the deed, would he?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know what he was doing the whole time because he ended up to [be] a big liar about everything. So, I have no idea. I just can’t answer that.
Appellee’s JA 117.
Even if Tubbs had not retreated on her argument that Church gave her the property unconditionally, she would still need specific supporting facts to forestall summary judgment. Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 605 (6th Cir.2008) (“In order to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff cannot rely on conjecture or eonelusory accusations.... Conclusory assertions, supported only by Plaintiffs own [444]*444opinions, cannot withstand a motion for summary judgment.”); Stalbosky v. Belew, 205 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir.2000) (vague and conclusory statement insufficient to counter a motion for summary judgment); Summerville v. Ross/Abbott Labs., 187 F.3d 638, at *4 (6th Cir.1999) (table) (con-clusory allegations in affidavit were not sufficient to withstand party’s motion for summary judgment).
The dissent espouses just the sort of “metaphysical doubt,” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, or “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence,” Anderson, All U.S. at 252,106 S.Ct. 2505, that should not preclude summary judgment. Given the state of the record before the district court, no “reasonable jury could return a verdict for [Tubbs],” making this case appropriate for summary-judgment resolution.2 Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
D. Other Personal Property
Tubbs contends that Church’s other gifts of personal property too were unconditional. But other than generally attacking the no-fault approach, Tubbs fails to develop any arguments to challenge the determination that Church’s personal-property gifts depended on the couple’s marriage. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment that the Estate is entitled to recover from Tubbs any of Church’s personal property stored within the Michigan home, including a $4,560 family heirloom diamond ring or its value.
III.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.