DARLENE M STARIHA V CHRYSLER GROUP LLC (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DARLENE M. STARIHA, UNPUBLISHED June 28, 2012 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 301238 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2008-094601-NZ CHRYSLER GROUP, L.L.C., f/k/a DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Before: WHITBECK, P.J., and JANSEN and K. F. KELLY, JJ. WHITBECK, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff s counsel a $2,000 attorney fee. I also agree that the trial court did not clearly err in holding that attorney-client privilege was inapplicable. And I agree that there is no evidence that the trial court relied on defendant s good faith when assessing reasonable attorney fees. Further, on the basis of the record, I am also not left with a definite and firm conviction1 that that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff s counsel did not fully convey the terms of the offer to plaintiff, since her testimony indicated both a lack of knowledge about the content of the offer and the reasons for rejection. Similarly, on the basis of the record, I am also not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff would have accepted the initial offer had she fully understood its terms. With that said, I write separately because I disagree with the majority s acceptance of the trial court s statement that plaintiff s counsel concealed the real reason she was advising against its acceptance. 2 Although plaintiff s testimony did indicate a lack of knowledge about the content of the offer and the reasons for rejection, on the basis of my review of the record, I believe that the record is completely lacking in evidentiary support3 for the trial court s finding that plaintiff s counsel actively concealed information from her client regarding the reason for 1 Peters v Gunnell, Inc, 253 Mich App 211, 221; 655 NW2d 582 (2002). 2 Emphasis added. 3 Hill v City of Warren, 276 Mich App 299, 308; 740 NW2d 706 (2007). -1- rejecting the initial settlement offer. Absent clear evidence on the record, I am not willing to impute such misconduct to plaintiff s counsel. /s/ William C. Whitbeck -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.
