Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PHYLLIS D. RAPAPORT, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v JACK C. CHILINGIRIAN, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED July 27, 1999

No. 209097 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 89-375679 NM

Before: Collins, P.J., Markman, and J.B.Sullivan*, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff appeals as of right from an opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. Defendant has filed a cross-appeal, seeking affirmation on the alternative ground that dismissal should have been ordered as a discovery sanction. We affirm. This appeal involves attorney Chilingirian's representation of plaintiff between 1983 and 1988 for three separate matters: (1) a legal malpractice against an attorney, John Manikoff, who represented plaintiff in former proceedings relative to her divorce from Raymond Rapaport and for which plaintiff received a monetary judgment as a result of a jury trial (the Manikoff matter); (2) an accounting action against a partnership in which plaintiff, her former husband, and Paddi Coughlin were all partners, and which was eventually settled by plaintiff (the Coughlin matter); and (3) post-judgment proceedings in the divorce case wherein plaintiff sought increased alimony from her former husband (the Rapaport matter). Our review of the trial court's grant of summary disposition is de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). However, an appellant may not leave it to a reviewing court to discover and rationalize the basis of his or her claims. Goolsby v Detroit , 419 Mich 651, 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984). An issue given only cursory treatment need not be addressed. Community Nat'l Bank v Michigan Basic Property Ins Ass'n, 159 Mich App 510, 520 521; 407 NW2d 31 (1987). Consistent with Goolsby and Community Nat'l Bank, we hold that plaintiff's broad assertion that her March 11, 1997, affidavit provides the requisite factual support for

* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

the legal malpractice allegations is insufficient to present for our review the question whether the trial court correctly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant. Plaintiff's assertion that she was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to our Supreme Court's order in the prior appeal reinstating the legal malpractice action, see 445 Mich 910, is also insufficient to present that question for appellate review. Goolsby, supra. We could also decline to address that issue because it is not set forth in the statement of questions presented. Meagher v McNeely & Lincoln, Inc, 212 Mich App 154, 157; 536 NW2d 851 (1985). In any event, the legal malpractice action was reinstated by the Supreme Court because it agreed with the dissenting opinion of this Court, Rapaport v Chilingirian, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued October 20, 1993 (Docket Nos. 132845, 132970 & 133232) (Judge Shepherd dissenting), that dismissal as a sanction for plaintiff's inadequate amended complaint was inappropriate. Reinstatement did not, however, preclude the trial court from ruling on defendant's motions for summary disposition, and the decision to grant summary disposition was not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's prior order. Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm'r, 218 Mich App 351, 355; 554 NW2d 43 (1996). Regarding the specific questions whether summary disposition was properly granted for the legal malpractice claims involving the Coughlin and Manikoff matters, the record indicates that the trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), based on plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a genuine issue of a material fact with respect to the element of causation. The record further indicates that the trial court considered the causation element in the context of the specific allegations made by plaintiff in Count I of her original complaint, which were premised on pre-withdrawal conduct, as well as the general allegations set forth in

Download PHYLLIS D RAPAPORT V JACK C CHILINGIRIAN.pdf

Michigan Law