Hall v Cohen, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 30, 2007 (Docket No. 270949)

Link: http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20070130_C270949_46_270949.OPN.PDF

Underlying Case or Transaction: Divorce

Key Concepts: (1) collateral estoppel

In this case, defendant represented plaintiff in a divorce proceeding. A judgment was entered on the divorce and, at a hearing, plaintiff testified about the settlement that was reached at mediation. Defendant, as plaintiff's attorney, questioned plaintiff about whether she was satisfied with the settlement, satisfied with defendant's legal representation of her, and whether she was acting free of duress and coercion. Plaintiff answered all of the questions affirmatively.

Subsequently, plaintiff sued defendant alleging that defendant negligently handled the divorce. Defendant moved for summary disposition, which the trial court granted under 2.116(C)(7) on the basis that plaintiff was barred from bringing the suit on the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue between the same parties or their privies when the earlier proceeding's determination of the issue was necessary to reach a final judgment. Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 682-684 (2004). However, the doctrine only bars relitigation of an issue if the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues in the prior proceeding.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the adequacy of defendant's representation was not actually litigated, was not determined by a valid and final judgment, and was not essential to the final judgment. The court of appeals noted that plaintiff made statements on the record based upon the knowledge that she had at the time, and although those statements constitute evidence of state of mind, they do not conclusively foreclose a later action for malpractice.