Breach of contract; Valid contract; Burden of proof; Summary disposition; MCR 2.116(C)(10); Discovery supplementation; MCR 2.302(E); Contradictory affidavit; Bakeman v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest; Sanctions; Frivolous claim; MCL 600.2591; MCR 1.109(E); Attorney fees

The court held that plaintiff-LLC failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an enforceable contract and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning plaintiff and its agent. Plaintiff alleged defendant owed it 10% of defendant’s estate settlement under a written agreement that plaintiff’s agent, nonparty-T, claimed defendant signed by hand at his kitchen table. Both parties’ handwriting experts later agreed defendant’s signature on the alleged agreement was a “cut-and-paste transference” from another document. The court held that plaintiff could not rely on T’s later affidavit suggesting a different sequence of events because it directly conflicted with plaintiff’s discovery responses and deposition testimony, and plaintiff never corrected its responses as required by MCR 2.302(E). The court reasoned that plaintiff could not “‘manufacture a question of material fact’” through an affidavit contradicting prior testimony. With the record “devoid of any valid copy” of the alleged contract plaintiff sought to enforce, or sufficient other evidence establishing its terms, summary disposition was proper. The court also upheld sanctions under MCL 600.2591 and MCR 1.109(E) because the trial court did not err by finding plaintiff and T knew they lacked “a valid signature on a contract” but continued pursuing the case after the invalidity was exposed. The complaint was not “well grounded in fact,” and plaintiff’s continued litigation needlessly increased defendant’s costs. Affirmed.