Sheryl Lynn Roth v. Sabrina Cronin
329018
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- In 2011, Roth's divorce from Jaimey Roth proceeded with Sabrina Cronin representing Roth.
- At a March 28, 2012 hearing, Judge Sosnick recorded the settlement terms, Roth testified she understood them and chose to settle.
- The judge then granted a divorce judgment consistent with those on-record terms.
- In March 2014, Roth sued Cronin and The Cronin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging negligent settlement discussions without valuing the marital estate.
- The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), finding Roth failed to show a potential better result at trial.
- On appeal, Roth argues evidence raises genuine issues of material fact, but the court affirming on judicial estoppel grounds determines Roth is barred from inconsistent positions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Roth's claim | Roth argues she could prove malpractice independent of settlement inconsistencies | Cronin argues Roth is judicially estopped from contradicting her prior testimony | Affirmed based on judicial estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- Paschke v Retool Indus, 445 Mich 502 (1994) (doctrine prevents inconsistent positions in litigation)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Null, 304 Mich App 508 (2014) (judicial estoppel applies when a party asserts a position contrary to a prior sworn statement)
- Detroit Int'l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662 (2008) (further application of judicial estoppel principles)
- Messenger v Ingham Co Prosecutor, 232 Mich App 633 (1998) (affirming summary disposition under related estoppel rationale)