Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


SHAPOOR ANSARI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v JOHN F. SCHAEFER and THE LAW FIRM OF JOHN F. SCHAEFER, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED July 28, 2005

No. 260744 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 04-059049-NM

Before: Neff, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's grant of defendants' motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) and the dismissal of plaintiff's claim. We affirm. I This case arose out of defendants' representation in an underlying divorce action between plaintiff and his former wife, Sue Ann Marie Ansari. The divorce action was filed in September 2000 and settled in February 2002.1 On March 11, 2004, plaintiff filed the instant complaint alleging that defendants' malpractice caused plaintiff losses of approximately $75 million in his stock portfolio because market values plummeted during the eighteen months that the divorce action was pending. In particular, plaintiff claimed that defendants were responsible for the decline in the value of plaintiff's investments in several accounts, approximately $26 million between September 21, 2000 and October 13, 2000, because a temporary restraining order prevented plaintiff from managing his accounts. Plaintiff also claimed that defendant provided negligent advice concerning the validity of a prenuptial agreement, which induced plaintiff to settle the divorce action to his disadvantage. Plaintiff sought damages for his financial losses and for mental anguish. Plaintiff states that he signed a settlement agreement on February 14, 2002, which was incorporated in the judgment of divorce entered on March 15, 2002.
1

-1-


The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition, concluding that although plaintiff's evidence showed that his accounts declined in value, no evidence existed regarding causation. Further, the existence of damages related to the prenuptial agreement was uncertain and speculative. II On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendants where there were clear legal errors and there existed genuine issues of material fact regarding causation. We disagree. A We review de novo a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary disposition. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). Our review is limited to the evidence before the trial court at the time the motion was decided. Pe

Download SHAPOOR ANSARI V JOHN F SCHAEFER.pdf

Michigan Law