judicial estoppel doctrine in Michigan

2025“For judicial estoppel to apply, a party must have successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding that is wholly inconsistent with the position now taken.” Szyszlo v Akowitz, 296 Mich App 40, 51 ; 818 NW2d 424 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016For the doctrine of judicial estoppel to apply, a party’s claims in the two cases “must be wholly inconsistent.” Id.; Szyszlo, 296 Mich App at 51 .

2022This Court has held that “[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party that has unequivocally and successfully set forth a position in a prior proceeding is estopped from setting forth an inconsistent position in a later proceeding.” Detroit Int’l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662, 672 ; 760 NW2d 565 (2008).

2022This Court has held that “[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party that has unequivocally and successfully set forth a position in a prior proceeding is estopped from setting forth an inconsistent position in a later proceeding.” Detroit Int’l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662, 672 ; 760 NW2d 565 (2008).

2019The doctrine was developed to prevent parties from playing “ ‘fast and loose’ with the legal system.” Paschke, 445 Mich at 509 (citation omitted). [Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Null, 304 Mich App 508, 537 ; 847 NW2d 657 (2014).] -2- More than a mere assertion that an opposition’s positions are inconsistent is required to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel; it must be clear that the court in the earlier proceeding adopted the inconsistent position as true.

2019The doctrine was developed to prevent parties from playing “ ‘fast and loose’ with the legal system.” Paschke, 445 Mich at 509 (citation omitted). [Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Null, 304 Mich App 508, 537 ; 847 NW2d 657 (2014).] -2- More than a mere assertion that an opposition’s positions are inconsistent is required to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel; it must be clear that the court in the earlier proceeding adopted the inconsistent position as true.

2020“The doctrine of judicial estoppel” or “the doctrine against the assertion of inconsistent positions,” precludes litigants from playing “ ‘fast and loose, with the legal system.” Paschke v Retool Industries, 445 Mich 502, 509 ; 519 NW2d 441 (1994) (citations omitted). “ ‘Under this doctrine, a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding is estopped from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.’ ” Id., quoting Lichon v American Univ Ins Co, 435 Mich 408, 416 ; 459 NW2d 288 (1990).

2020“The doctrine of judicial estoppel” or “the doctrine against the assertion of inconsistent positions,” precludes litigants from playing “ ‘fast and loose, with the legal system.” Paschke v Retool Industries, 445 Mich 502, 509 ; 519 NW2d 441 (1994) (citations omitted). “ ‘Under this doctrine, a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding is estopped from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.’ ” Id., quoting Lichon v American Univ Ins Co, 435 Mich 408, 416 ; 459 NW2d 288 (1990).

2018ANALYSIS Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party who “has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding” is barred “from asserting an inconsistent one at a subsequent proceeding.” Auto-Owners Ins Co v Harvey, 219 Mich App 466, 474 ; 556 NW2d 517 (1996).

2018ANALYSIS Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party who “has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding” is barred “from asserting an inconsistent one at a subsequent proceeding.” Auto-Owners Ins Co v Harvey, 219 Mich App 466, 474 ; 556 NW2d 517 (1996).

2019In Duncan v Michigan, 300 Mich App 176, 190 ; 832 NW2d 761 , app dis 494 Mich 879 (2013) this Court explained the theory underlying the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

2019In Duncan v Michigan, 300 Mich App 176, 190 ; 832 NW2d 761 , app dis 494 Mich 879 (2013) this Court explained the theory underlying the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

2022“Under [that] doctrine, a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a 2 In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies if the following three elements are satisfied: (1) a question of fact essential to the judgment must have been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment; (2) the same parties must have had a full [and fair] opportunity to litigate the issue; and (3) there must be mutuality of estoppel. [Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 682-684 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted, alteration in original).] 3 “Dictum is a

2022“Under [that] doctrine, a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a 2 In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies if the following three elements are satisfied: (1) a question of fact essential to the judgment must have been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment; (2) the same parties must have had a full [and fair] opportunity to litigate the issue; and (3) there must be mutuality of estoppel. [Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 682-684 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted, alteration in original).] 3 “Dictum is a

2024As such, the Court strikes Mr. Petersen’s report and testimony from being asserted by Plaintiff in the instant matter, Spohn, supra, Wolverine Power [Coop v DEQ, 285 Mich App 548 ; 777 NW2d 1 (2009)], as it finds Plaintiff's reliance on that report is wholly inconsistent with her position, on which she prevailed, in case number 2017-161555-NI.

2024As such, the Court strikes Mr. Petersen’s report and testimony from being asserted by Plaintiff in the instant matter, Spohn, supra, Wolverine Power [Coop v DEQ, 285 Mich App 548 ; 777 NW2d 1 (2009)], as it finds Plaintiff's reliance on that report is wholly inconsistent with her position, on which she prevailed, in case number 2017-161555-NI.

2024In order to protect the integrity of the judicial process, “[j]udicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a legal position in conflict with a position taken earlier in the same or related litigation.” Ford Motor Co v Pub Serv Comm, 221 Mich App 370, 382 ; 562 NW2d 224 (1997).

2024In order to protect the integrity of the judicial process, “[j]udicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a legal position in conflict with a position taken earlier in the same or related litigation.” Ford Motor Co v Pub Serv Comm, 221 Mich App 370, 382 ; 562 NW2d 224 (1997).

2024In sum, plaintiff was not entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and any error on the part of the trial court was harmless. stare decisis mandates that published decisions of this Court are precedential and binding on lower courts and tribunals.” Dana Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 267 Mich App 690, 698 ; 706 NW2d 204 (2005).

2024In sum, plaintiff was not entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and any error on the part of the trial court was harmless. stare decisis mandates that published decisions of this Court are precedential and binding on lower courts and tribunals.” Dana Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 267 Mich App 690, 698 ; 706 NW2d 204 (2005).

2023The point is that MDOT is mandating that this obstruction be placed there.” The trial court agreed with this assertion, stating “MDOT is mandating that [the developers] install the right-in, right-out concrete feature . . . .” The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that, “a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding is estopped from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.” Morales v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 279 Mich App 720, 737 ; 761 NW2d 454 (2008) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2023The point is that MDOT is mandating that this obstruction be placed there.” The trial court agreed with this assertion, stating “MDOT is mandating that [the developers] install the right-in, right-out concrete feature . . . .” The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that, “a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in a prior proceeding is estopped from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.” Morales v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 279 Mich App 720, 737 ; 761 NW2d 454 (2008) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2016Rather, defendants simply stated that the claims alleged “are barred by the running of the applicable statutes of limitation,” and, potentially interpretable as a judicial estoppel defense, the claim “is barred by the fraudulent acts of the Plaintiff.” “[A] defendant may move to amend their affirmative defenses to add any that become apparent at any time[.]” Id. at 213 .

2016Further, in order for the doctrine of judicial estoppel to apply, the claims must be wholly inconsistent. [Paschke v Retool Indus, 445 Mich 502, 509-510 ; 519 NW2d 441 (1994) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] The Lankinens’ “clogging” claim stems from an old, “established,” and “inviolate” doctrine holding that a mortgagor’s equitable right to redeem a mortgage “cannot be waived or abandoned by any stipulation of the parties made at the time, even if embodied in the mortgage.” Peugh v Davis, 96 US (6 Otto) 332, 337; 24 L Ed 775 (1878).

2016People v White, 307 Mich App 425, 431 ; 862 NW2d 1 (2014); Schlumm, 173 Mich App at 360 .

2016Id. -8- Our Supreme Court has described the doctrine of judicial estoppel as a “doctrine against the assertion of inconsistent positions,” which is applied “by the courts in impeding those litigants who would otherwise play ‘fast and loose’ with the legal system.” Paschke v Retool Industries, 445 Mich 502, 509 ; 519 NW2d 441 (1994).

2016People v White, 307 Mich App 425, 431 ; 862 NW2d 1 (2014); Schlumm, 173 Mich App at 360 .

2016People v White, 307 Mich App 425, 431 ; 862 NW2d 1 (2014); Schlumm, 173 Mich App at 360 .

1998Id. at 243, cit *120 ing McNemar v Disney Store, Inc, 91 F3d 610 (CA 3, 1996). 3 In Blanton, supra at 917 , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Swanks opinion and held that the receipt of disability benefits does not preclude a subsequent ADA action.

1998For these reasons, the district court’s decision cannot be sustained based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel. [Citations omitted.] In our previous opinion we adopted what is obviously now the minority view found in McNemar, supra, and held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel barred plaintiff’s handicap discrimination claim.

1998In Griffith, supra at 380-382 , it more fully addressed why the doctrine of judicial estoppel should not bar a subsequent handicap claim: The doctrine of judicial estoppel “forbids a party ‘from taking a position inconsistent with one successfully and unequivocally asserted by the same party in a prior proceeding.’ ’’ Courts apply judicial estoppel in order to “preserve]] the integrity of the courts by preventing a party from abusing the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship, achieving success on one position, then arguing the opposing to suit an exigency of the moment.” The doctrine a

1994Defendants appealed in the Court of Appeals, which found, sua sponte, that plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 197 Mich App 650 ; 496 NW2d 804 (1992).

1994Defendants appealed in the Court of Appeals, which found, sua sponte, that plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 197 Mich App 650 ; 496 NW2d 804 (1992).

1994The Court held that plaintiff’s claim was inconsistent with claims earlier made to the mesc that he was willing and able to work. 2 Following a petition for rehearing, the Court of Appeals clarified its brief holding in the case. 198 Mich App 702 ; 499 NW2d 453 (1993).

1994The Court held that plaintiff’s claim was inconsistent with claims earlier made to the mesc that he was willing and able to work. 2 Following a petition for rehearing, the Court of Appeals clarified its brief holding in the case. 198 Mich App 702 ; 499 NW2d 453 (1993).