Defendants appeal as of right a December 1990 order denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition and granting plaintiffs motion for summary disposition, both brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10). We reverse.
During each semester of the 1988-89 school year, plaintiffs senior year at Brighton High School, plaintiff was absent without excuse on more than six occasions. She was denied course crеdit under the school’s attendance policy, and was ultimately denied a diploma.
Plaintiff sued defendants alleging constitutional, contract, and tort theories, and also raising equitable claims. The trial court ruled that plaintiff lacked an adequate remеdy at law and was entitled to equitable relief (issuanсe of a diploma) because the school attendance policy was unreasonablе. Accordingly, the trial court granted plaintiffs (and deniеd defendants’) motion for summary disposition.
Becausе we conclude that plaintiff is barred from equitablе relief by the clean hands doctrine, we need not and do not reach the question whether defendants’ attendance policy was reasonable.
One who seeks the aid of equity must come in with cleаn hands. This maxim is an integral part of any action in equity, аnd is designed to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
Stachnik v Winkel,
а self-imposed ordinance that closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief, however improper may havе been the *190 behavior of the defendant. That doctrine is rooted in the historical concept оf the court of equity as a vehicle for affirmatively enforcing the requirements of consciencе and good faith. This presupposes a refusal on its part to be "the abettor of iniquity.” [Stachnik, supra, p 382, quoting Precision Instrument Mfg Cо v Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co,324 US 806 , 814;65 S Ct 993 ;89 L Ed 1381 (1945).]
Plaintiff admittedly forged excuse notes, so she does not have clean hands.
In determining whether the plaintiffs come before this Court with clean hands, the primary faсtor to be considered is whether the plaintiffs sought to mislead or deceive the other party, not whether that party relied upon plaintiff’s misrepresеntations. [Stachnik, supra, p 387.]
Thus, it is plaintiff’s deceit, not defendants’ reliance on the forged notes, that determines whether the clean hands doctrine should be applied. As Justiсe Cooley wrote:
[I]f there are any indications of overreaching or unfairness on [equity plaintiff’s] рart, the court will refuse to entertain his case, аnd turn him over to the usual remedies. 1
We find that the clean hands doctrine applies to prevent plaintiff from securing the relief she requests. In view of our resolution of this matter, we do not reach the other issues raised.
Reversed._
Notes
Rust v Conrad,