CENTRAL AUTO LEASING INC V DANIEL KEITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CENTRAL AUTO LEASING, INC. and JOHN
MANIACI,
UNPUBLISHED
March 31, 2000
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 210618
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-721814 NO
STEPHEN R. FELSON,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DANIEL KEITH,
Defendant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Sawyer and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the order granting defendant-appellee Felson’s motion for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this legal malpractice action. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiffs were parties to a contract action and two discrimination actions involving First of
America Bank. After an exchange of correspondence, plaintiffs retained Felson. Felson expressly
stated that his representation was limited to the discrimination action, and that he would not mount a
defense to the bank’s contract claim. After a continuing exchange of correspondence, Felson withdrew
from the representation. Plaintiffs retained another attorney, and the second federal discrimination claim
was dismissed on the merits. Plaintiffs then brought this legal malpractice action.
A plaintiff in a legal malpractice action has the burden of proving the following: (1) the existence
of an attorney-client relationship, (2) the acts that are alleged to have constituted the negligence, (3) that
the negligence was the proximate cause of the alleged injury, and (4) the fact and extent of the injury.
Teodorescu v Bushnell, Gage, Reizen & Byington (On Remand), 201 Mich App 260, 264; 506
-1
NW2d 275 (1993). Factual causation is established by showing that, but for the attorney’s negligence,
the client would have prevailed in the underlying suit. Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko, 444 Mich
579, 586; 513 NW2d 773 (1994).
Defendant submitted documents that established that his representation was limited to the
discrimination action, which was dismissed on the merits. The only evidence submitted by plaintiffs to
contradict this assertion is the conclusory affidavit of Mr. Maniaci. A party opposing summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) may not rest upon mere allegations, but must by affidavit or other
documentary evidence set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Allen v
Comprehensive Health Services, 222 Mich App 426, 433-434; 564 NW2d 914 (1997). Statements
of the nonmoving party’s conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact on which they are based, are
insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Bowerman v Malloy Lithographing, Inc, 171
Mich App 110, 115-116; 430 NW2d 742 (1988). The court properly granted summary disposition to
defendant.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
