Court Opinion

ID: 9687072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:15:25.296647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.068004
License: Public Domain

Taylor, P.J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff presented any proof, either direct or circumstantial, that the molds were stolen. All that plaintiff has shown is that these molds are gone, and that plaintiff doesn’t know where they went or why they are gone. I would find that the affidavit purporting to contain proof of theft in reality contains nothing more than conjecture and speculation,1 Kaminski v Grand Trunk W R Co, 347 Mich 417, 422; 79 NW2d 899 (1956), and accordingly that plaintiff failed in its burden under MCR 2.116(0(10). McCart v J Walter Thompson USA, Inc, 437 Mich 109, 115; 469 NW2d 284 (1991).
I would affirm._

 It is my view that both the deposition and the affidavit of Robert Bretz were merely speculative, while the majority found evidence of theft in Bretz’ affidavit. However, his affidavit contradicts his earlier deposition testimony in this regard contrary to Gamet v Jenks, 38 Mich App 719, 726; 197 NW2d 160 (1972), and its progeny, which precludes a party from creating factual issues by submitting an affidavit contradicting his own prior testimony. Thus, even if Bretz’ affidavit does contain evidence of theft, it may not properly be used to defend a motion for summary disposition.