Broz v. Plante & Moran, PLLC
Decision Date | 11 December 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 340381,340381 |
Citation | 326 Mich.App. 528,928 N.W.2d 292 |
Parties | Robert F. BROZ and Kimberly Broz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PLANTE & MORAN, PLLC, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
MahanyLaw (by Anthony Dietz, Lansing and Brian Mahany ) for plaintiffs.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, Detroit (by Michael W. Hartmann and James Woolard ) for defendant.
Before: Boonstra, P.J., and Jansen and Gadola, JJ.
Gadola, J.Plaintiffs, Robert F. and Kimberly Broz, appeal as of right the order of the trial court granting summary disposition to defendant, Plante & Moran, PLLC, under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We affirm.
I. FACTS
This case involves alleged accounting malpractice. When this case was previously before this Court in Broz v. Plante & Moran, PLLC , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 17, 2016 (Docket No. 325884) 2016 WL 2908341, we summarized the underlying facts as follows:
On appeal in this Court, plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to defendant on ripeness grounds. This Court agreed, reversing the decision of the trial court and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Id . at 4.
On remand, the parties engaged in additional discovery, and defendant again sought summary disposition of plaintiffs' amended complaint, which alleged breach of contract, professional negligence (malpractice), negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and "estoppel to mitigate and indemnity." The trial court granted defendant’s motion, dismissing plaintiffs' claim for professional negligence (malpractice) under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and dismissing all other counts of plaintiffs' complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Plaintiffs again appeal in this Court.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition of their claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary disposition. Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc. , 500 Mich. 1, 5-6, 890 N.W.2d 344 (2016). In so doing, we review the entire record to determine whether the moving party was entitled to summary disposition. Maiden v. Rozwood , 461 Mich. 109, 118, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). We also review de novo issues of statutory construction. Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co. , 479 Mich. 378, 386, 738 N.W.2d 664 (2007).
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) Maiden , 461 Mich. at 119, 597 N.W.2d 817. A motion for summary disposition under this section is properly granted when, considering only the pleadings, the alleged claims are clearly unenforceable as a matter of law and no factual development could justify recovery. Id . at 119-120. By contrast, when reviewing an order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court considers all documentary evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dawoud v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 317 Mich. App. 517, 520, 895 N.W.2d 188 (2016). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is warranted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id . When a motion is made and supported under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show, by affidavits or other documentary evidence, that there is a genuine issue of material fact. MCR 2.116(G)(4) ; Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co. , 451 Mich. 358, 362, 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996). If the nonmoving party does not make such a showing, summary disposition is properly granted. Quinto , 451 Mich. at 363, 547 N.W.2d 314.
A. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (MALPRACTICE)
Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) of plaintiffs' claim of accounting malpractice. We disagree.
1. STANDARD OF CARE
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously imposed on them a duty to establish the standard of care and whether defendant met that standard of care, which plaintiffs argue is a burden that is not properly imposed on a plaintiff bringing a claim of accounting malpractice. Plaintiffs are incorrect in this assertion.
Professional malpractice arises from the "breach of a duty owed by one rendering professional services to a person who has contracted for such services." Saur v. Probes , 190 Mich. App. 636, 638, 476 N.W.2d 496 (1991). A professional malpractice claim is a tort claim predicated on the failure of the defendant to exercise the requisite professional skill. Stewart v. Rudner , 349 Mich. 459, 468, 84 N.W.2d 816 (1957). Accounting is a profession traditionally subject to common-law malpractice liability. Local 1064, RWDSU AFL-CIO v. Ernst & Young , 449 Mich. 322, 333, 535 N.W.2d 187 (1995).
Members of a state-licensed profession, such as accountants, are subject to liability for malpractice under the rules of the common law as articulated by MCL 600.2912,1 which provides:
Section 2962 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.2962, sets forth limitations on liability for accounting malpractice. At all times relevant to this action,2 § 2962 provided:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Broz v. Plante & Moran
...court granting summary disposition to defendant, Plante & Moran, PLLC, under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Broz v. Plante & Moran, PLLC , 326 Mich. App. 528, 928 N.W.2d 292 (2018) ( Broz II ). Thereafter, our Supreme Court considered plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal and in lieu of gr......
-
Estate of Voutsaras by Gaydos v. Bender
...services ... predicated on the failure of the defendant to exercise the requisite professional skill." Broz v. Plante & Moran, PLLC , 326 Mich.App. 528, 535–37, 928 N.W.2d 292 (2018). "Generally, to state a claim for malpractice, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a professional r......
-
Hooper Hathaway, PC v. Atlas Techs.
... ... client's injury." Broz v Plante & Moran, ... PLLC , 326 Mich.App. 528, 537; 928 N.W.2d 292 ... ...
- Hooker v. Moore