Where two plaintiff law firms have moved for summary disposition, their motions should be allowed because (1) no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the balances stated in plaintiffs’ accounts are inaccurate or not owed and (2) the defendants’ legal malpractice counterclaim is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
“This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Disposition filed by Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Bodman PLC (‘Bodman’) and Edward G. Lennon PLLC d/b/a Lennon Law PLLC (‘Lennon’) pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiffs seek summary disposition on their account stated claims, requesting money judgments of $45,512.45 in favor of Bodman and $22,907.85 in favor of Lennon. Plaintiffs further move for summary disposition dismissing all Counterclaims asserted by Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Amy Mosher (‘Mosher’) and NB Fund 1 LLC (‘NB Fund’). …
“Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary disposition on their account-stated claims because they submitted affidavits pursuant to MCL 600.2145, together with the accounts reflecting the balances due, and Defendants did not submit counter-affidavits denying those accounts. …
“Plaintiffs’ affidavits therefore establish prima facie evidence that Bodman is owed $45,512.45 and Lennon is owed $22,907.85. …
“… The generalized statement that Defendants had ‘serious concerns about the bills,’ without an identified billing error or amount and without record evidence of any follow-up specifying what was disputed, is insufficient to rebut Plaintiffs’ prima facie evidence of indebtedness. …
“Viewed in the light most favorable to Defendants, the record establishes generalized dissatisfaction with the bills and with Lennon, but no specific admissible evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the balances stated in Plaintiffs’ accounts are inaccurate or not owed. Defendant does not file an affidavit. Defendants may not rest on allegations or denials in their pleadings in response to a properly supported motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10); they must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. MCR 2.116(G)(4). On this record, Plaintiffs’ prima facie showing remains unrebutted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary disposition on their account-stated claims under MCR 2.116(C)(10). …
“Lennon argues that Defendants’ legal-malpractice counterclaim is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The Court agrees. …
“… Defendants have not established that a statutory exception or tolling provision applies to their legal malpractice claims. Nor does the fact that the Underlying Litigation remained pending on appeal until February 18, 2025, extend the limitations period applicable to Lennon or Bodman. The relevant date is when the attorney discontinued serving the client with respect to the matter giving rise to the malpractice claim. … The record reflects that neither Lennon nor Bodman represented Defendants in the appeal, and the subsequent representation by separate appellate counsel does not, standing alone, extend Lennon’s and Bodman’s period of service. Accordingly, Defendants’ legal-malpractice counterclaims against Lennon and Bodman are barred by the statute of limitations and are dismissed pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7).”
Bodman PLC v. Mosher; MiLW No. 10-111346, 13 pages; Oakland Circuit Court; Valentine, J.