734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

CONTRACTS 4: An agreement to settle a pending lawsuit constitutes a contract.

In this case, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Defendants argued that the parties had reached only a preliminary agreement in principle rather than a final binding settlement and that the alleged agreement did not satisfy the requirements of MCR 2.507(G).

Plaintiffs initiated this action as a result of a dispute over the use and maintenance of an access easement on defendants’ property that plaintiffs had used over several decades. Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging encroachment along the driveway and encroachment on their property following plaintiffs’ removal of a farm fence along the westerly boundary of easement. The parties’ attorneys entered into negotiations and reached a settlement in principle as documented in a series of e-mail exchanges.

Subsequently, the parties reported to the trial court that they had reached an agreement in principle, and they requested two stipulated adjournments in order to allow the parties to begin performance and to complete the settlement. Several months later, however, defendants’ counsel withdrew as attorneys for defendants, and defendants denied that an enforceable settlement had been achieved.

The trial court subsequently granted plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the requirements of MCR 2.507(G) were not met.

An agreement to settle a pending lawsuit constitutes a contract, and therefore the agreement is governed by legal principles applicable to the interpretation and construction of contracts. Like other contracts, a settlement agreement must include an offer and acceptance, as well as mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential terms. Acceptance must be unambiguous and in strict conformity with the offer; otherwise, no contract is formed.

Also, an agreement or consent between the parties or their attorneys respecting the proceedings in an action is not binding unless it was made in open court, or unless evidence of the agreement is in writing, subscribed by the party against whom the agreement is offered or by that party’s attorney.

A signature at the bottom of an e-mail meets this criterion so long as the e-mail also contains the terms of the settlement.

In this case, on December 13 plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail to defendants’ counsel that stated the terms of the settlement.  Both the December 13 reply, which specifically indicated defendants’ counsel’s agreement, and the December 15 reply, which confirmed that the parties had an agreement in principle, contained the attorney’s name typed at the end of the message. Therefore, the subscription requirement of MCR 2.507(G) was satisfied.

The proposed settlement agreement e-mails, stipulations evidencing that an agreement was reached, and the parties’ actions were sufficient to create an enforceable contract between the parties.

Aldrich Legal Services represent clients in all areas of real estate law and business law. You will work with an attorney who has the extensive contract experience necessary to help you reach an effective resolution that protects your interests.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405