With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Owners also complain that the Association’s motion for summary judgment on their fraud claim was “substantively insufficient,” “conclusory,” and “fails to state the specific grounds upon which the relief is being sought.” We disagree. The Association’s motion states: “Because [the Owners] are, as a matter of law, required to pay to [the Association] assessments as set forth in the Declaration and other applicable documents, [the Owners’] claim for fraud must, as a matter of law, also fail.” This statement unequivocally identifies the fatal flaw in the Owners’ fraud claim: it rested on an alleged misrepresentation — they were required to pay assessments — that was in fact a true statement. No more is required. See, e.g., Little v. Tex. Dep’t of Justice, 148 S.W.3d 374, 381 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). Amount of Assessments and ATTORNEY’S FEES

A: holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
B: holding that defendant who conclusively negates at least one essential element of plaintiffs cause of action entitled to summary judgment
C: holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury
D: holding that it is clearly settled that where there is a failure to establish an essential element of the defamation cause of action the case becomes one of law for the court
B.