Legal malpractice; Proximate cause; Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko; Summary disposition; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3); Motion to amend the complaint; Failure to submit any written proposed amendments; Motions to compel discovery & responses to subpoenas; Failure to attach a copy of the proofs of service to the motion

The court held that the trial court did not err in ruling no genuine issue of material fact existed and that plaintiff “failed to establish the proximate-cause element” of her legal malpractice claim. Further, it did not err in denying her motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and to compel discovery and responses to subpoenas. Defendant had represented plaintiff in a divorce case. Plaintiff’s claim was based “on the theory that defendant had failed to adequately investigate” her ex-husband’s (S) ownership interests in certain businesses (DR Novi and DRS). The court found that she failed to establish “any error in the trial court’s determinations or in its ultimate ruling that summary disposition was appropriate. To prove that [S] had a previously undisclosed ownership interest in DRS, plaintiff relied on her expert’s affidavit and checks [S] received from bank accounts belonging to” two entities. But the founder (H) of DRS Novi and DRS explained that “the names on the bank accounts from which the checks were drawn . . . were divisions within DR Novi, not within DRS. Although that organizational structure is confusing, no evidence contradicts the statement in [H’s] affidavit that those checks came from a department of DR Novi.” Thus, they were not evidence that S “had an ownership interest in DRS.” The court concluded that “plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit does not create a genuine issue of material fact. The expert’s opinion rested on the fact that [S] received checks from DRS,” but the trial court correctly determined that this “opinion was based on ‘the incorrect assertion . . . that the checks received by [S] were drawn on a DRS account.’ [It] then concluded that because the expert’s opinion was predicated on incorrect facts, it did not create a genuine issue of material fact on” proximate cause. Precedent supported that conclusion. The court held that the trial court was correct “that there was no genuine issue of fact as to [S’s] lack of ownership interest in DRS.” Given that plaintiff’s claim depended on S having “an undisclosed ownership interest in DRS and so the divorce settlement was inequitable, the trial court did not err” in granting defendant summary disposition. Further, the divorce judgment’s “disclosure of assets” provision, which enabled “plaintiff to reopen the divorce case and pursue the division of any hidden assets,” showed that she did not suffer any injury. Affirmed.