Judicial estoppel barred Plaintiff-Appellant's claims that depended on an ownership interest in the property, as she had previously denied such an interest in her bankruptcy petition. However, judicial estoppel did not preclude her claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition in favor of Defendants, an attorney and his law firm.  The Court reasoned that Defendants were immune from tort liability when speaking to the State Bar of Michigan’s character-and-fitness committee regarding Plaintiff, a law school graduate, even if their statements could have been false or misleading.