Court Opinion

ID: 9657872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:40:03.994311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:49.046582
License: Public Domain

Quinn, J.,
(dissenting). I dissent not because I disagree with the reasoning or the result of the majority opinion but because I think it is contrary to existing law. In denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the trial judge stated he was bound by that law. On review of the trial court, I believe we are bound by the same law. I refer to Clark v. Naufel (1950), 328 Mich 249, which I read to hold that before the doctrine of estoppel by judgment can be asserted, it must appear that the parties or their privies to the action in which application of the doctrine is sought are the same as the parties or their privies to the action in which the judgment was obtained.
The trial court should be affirmed except with respect to its order as to Anna Sue Collins. She is not. a party to" this action, and that part of the order relating-to her should be stricken.