DIVORCE 45: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

UNDERLYING FACTS

Plaintiff and defendant were married in September 2001 and divorced in August 2013. The parties entered into a divorce settlement agreement which included, in relevant part, a provision titled “Mutual Release of Claims,” which did not exclude any claims based upon fraud or which arise out of the obligations created by or specifically preserved in this Settlement Agreement .The divorce settlement agreement was incorporated into and merged with the judgment of divorce.

This case arises out of defendant’s allegations that plaintiff committed fraud by stealing $250,000 from him while they were married, using most of that money to buy a house with her boyfriendwhile she was still married to defendant, and then failing to disclose any of this information during the divorce proceedings. Defendant learned about plaintiff’s alleged actions in October 2017 when he deposed Plaintiff in an unrelated case. Four months after learning about plaintiff’s alleged fraud, defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment of divorce based on plaintiff’s fraud. Plaintiff argued that defendant’s motion was untimely and that, even if it was timely, the mutual release clause expressly precluded defendant from bringing any claim based on fraud. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and denied defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment of divorce. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to set aside the judgment of divorce based on plaintiff’s alleged fraud. We agree. A trial court’s decision on a motion to set aside a prior judgment is discretionary and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. The interpretation and application of court rules present questions of law to be reviewed de novo using the principles of statutory interpretation.

A settlement agreement in a divorce action constitutes a contract. In ascertaining the meaning of a contract, we give the words used in the contract their plain and ordinary meaning that would be apparent to a reader of the instrument. The language of the mutual release clause is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence specifically addresses claims of fraud and claims to enforce the terms of the divorce settlement agreement. Thus, the trial court erred when it held that the mutual release clause barred defendant’s fraud claim.

Even though the divorce settlement agreement permitted defendant to bring his fraud claim, his motion to set aside the judgment of divorce was nevertheless required to be timely for the trial court to consider it. A party may seek relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C). Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment of divorce is only timely if the requirements of subrule (1)(f) are met. A motion to set aside a prior judgment is timely under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) if it is filed in a “reasonable time.” MCR 2.612(C)(2). Defendant filed his motion to set aside the judgment of divorce about 4 ½ years after the judgment of divorce, but only four months after Compton’s deposition in which Compton outlined the alleged scope of plaintiff’s fraudulent actions. Thus, defendant filed his motion to set aside the judgment of divorce within a reasonable time because it was filed only four months after learning of plaintiff’s alleged fraud. Where a party has alleged that a fraud has been committed on the court, it is generally an abuse of discretion for the court to decide the motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing regarding the allegations. An evidentiary hearing is necessary where fraud has been alleged because the proof required to sustain a motion to set aside a judgment because of fraud is “of the highest order.”

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated earlier, the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment of divorce is vacated and we remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ADVICE TO CLIENTS FRAUD ISSUES IN DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS

Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have property settlement issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parties throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of divorce related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

DIVORCE 51: Holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff-ex-wife’s requested calculation of interest payments, the court vacated the ruling and remanded the case.

The Plaintiff and defendant were married in October 1994. Plaintiff filed for divorce on February 4, 2004, and the trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce on January 5, 2005. The judgment referenced a property settlement agreement, under...

DIVORCE 50: WHILE THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A LEGAL ERROR IN RULING THAT DEFENDANT’S PENSION WAS NOT A MARITAL ASSET, REVERSAL WAS NOT REQUIRED.

The parties were married in 1988 and have three adult children. During their marriage, the parties purchased the marital home in 1994 (1994 home) with marital funds. After plaintiff’s father died in 2006, the home next door to the marital home...

CRIMINAL 8: Charged with aiding and abetting of manufacturing marijuana.

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), provides very limited circumstances in which persons involved with the use of marijuana, may avoid criminal liability. Accomplices to crimes may be prosecuted under an aiding and abetting theory.

PROBATE 41: MCL 700.5204(2)(b) is constitutional and does not infringe on a parent’s constitutional right to the care, custody, and management of his or her children.

FAMILY LAW 56: The court held that the trial court erred by failing to consider up-to-date information before ordering the change of the child’s ECE.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The parties were involved in a romantic relationship when the minor child who is the subject of these proceedings was born on February 9, 2006. The parties did not live together and were never married. Approximately one year...

FAMILY LAW 54: The trial court’s conclusion that defendant-mother had a substance abuse issue was not against the great weight of the evidence and did not require expert testimony.

BACKGROUND The parties have a minor child (ABF), who was twelve-years-old at the time of the proceedings. Defendant had primary physical custody of ABF until she...

REAL ESTATE 63: HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED TITLE, AND THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW SUPERIOR TITLE, THE COURT AFFIRMED SUMMARY DISPOSITION FOR PLAINTIFF IN THIS QUIET TITLE ACTION UNDER MCL 600.2932(1).

This case arises out of a property dispute between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff’s property and defendants’ property back-up against one another, so the back of plaintiff’s property borders the back of defendants’...

CRIMINAL LAW 7: Was initial contact with defendant a Terry stop?

The fact that the officers subjected defendant to a Terry stop does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

REAL ESTATE 62: THE SUPREME COURT VACATED THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR RECONSIDERATION

BACKGROUND The Court needed to determine the actual extent of an easement for a drain that runs across the southern edge of the plaintiff’s property. The releases at issue conveyed rights to fifty-foot strips of land on either side of the...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

FAMILY LAW 54: The court held that the trial court did not err by using the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support.

The parties were married for over 20 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. At the divorce trial, the parties’ incomes were a source of contention. Plaintiff wanted the trial court to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

DIVORCE 49: IT WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO AWARD BOTH PARTIES THEIR OWN APPRECIATED 401(K) ACCOUNTS.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s divorce judgment, challenging the decision to award each party their respective 401(k) accounts. Plaintiff argued in the trial court that she was entitled to a portion of the appreciation that...

REAL ESTATE 61: The trial court did not err in ruling that the disputed boundary was established by acquiescence arising from intent to deed to a marked boundary line.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent properties. Defendants’ property is east of plaintiff’s property, and the western boundary of defendants’ property is also the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s property....

DIVORCE 48: The trial court may only determine whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is ambiguous, not whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract was correct.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, and following mediation, the parties reached a transcribed mediation agreement in June 2014. The mediator read an outline of a property settlement agreement, the terms of which were to be...

REAL ESTATE 60: The trial court erred in granting summary disposition to the Defendants as to Plaintiff’s quiet title, promissory estoppels, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud in the inducement claims.

BACKGROUND This case arises out of a dispute between plaintiff and defendants regarding ownership of real property in Hamtramck, Michigan. Plaintiff brought this action, asserting claims of quiet title, breach of contract and promissory estoppel,...

Understanding the Difference Between Assault and Battery

For some, assault and battery are two terms that are commonly mixed up or used interchangeably while conversing.

DIVORCE 47: A CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE MATTERS AND HAS ALL EQUITABLE POWERS AVAILABLE TO IT TO EFFECTUATE ITS ORDERS

BACKGROUND The parties married in 1978, and they have three adult children. Plaintiff filed for divorce in September 2018, by which time both parties had reached retirement age. The property issues in dispute should have been relatively...

DIVORCE 47: A CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE MATTERS AND HAS ALL EQUITABLE POWERS AVAILABLE TO IT TO EFFECTUATE ITS ORDERS

PROBATE 40: THE PROBATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY INTERESTS OF A PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL THAT WERE TRANSFERRED BEFORE A CONSERVATORSHIP CAME INTO EFFECT.

On October 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a complaint as the Ward’s conservator and guardian against Respondent. Petitioner and Respondent are siblings and the children of the Ward. In the complaint, Petitioner alleged that she filed a...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

Can Passengers Drink Alcohol in a Car?

Michigan forbids the presence of open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger area of vehicles.

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

WILLS AND TRUST 9: THE COURT REJECTED A BENEFICIARY’S CLAIM THAT RESPONDANT VIOLATED HIS TRUSTEE DUTIES AND UPHELD THE COURT’S IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trust settler, “decedent” executed a “pour-over” will in which the residuary of his estate was to be held, managed, and distributed according to the trust, which was created in...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

WILLS AND TRUST 8: A SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE WAS ABLE TO MAKE DISTRIBUTIONS TO HIMSELF UNDER BOTH A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND UNDER THE TERMS OF A TRUST

PERTINENT FACTS In 2010, the decedents created the Trust and dual durable powers of attorney in which each spouse nominated the other to serve as primary attorney-in-fact with respondent to serve as the first alternate. The Trust designated the...

DIVORCE 45: Federal law preempts state law such that the parties’ consent judgment is unenforceable to the extent that it required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reduction in the amount payable to her due to his election to receive CRSC

BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between former spouses who entered into a consent judgment of divorce (the consent judgment), which provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military retirement benefits. Beyond that, the...

CRIMINAL LAW 15: The evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of resisting and obstructing a police officer.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of a call the Jackson Police Department received from a man who had gotten into a dispute with defendant. The officer on the scene ran defendant’s name through the Law Enforcement Information Network...

LITIGATION 8: Michigan law is clear that a trial court has the authority to grant a properly supported motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when the nonmoving party fails to file a timely response.

Plaintiffs sued Defendant for claims for account stated and breach of contract. Following discovery, plaintiffs moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that they were entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of...

CRIMINAL LAW 14: The district court’s decision to bindover the Defendant was not an abuse of discretion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On the evening of November 2, 2012, two men left work and were accosted by two unidentified men who came from behind an adjacent building who demanded money. One of the men brandished a...

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a DUI

No one wants to be arrested, and if you are, especially for the first time, you can be very confused. Being arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) - formerly Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)...

DIVORCE 44: A POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY WHEN IT WAS MOSTLY NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE MARRIAGE AND WAS NOT CREATED IN CONTEMPLATION OF A FUTURE DIVORCE

BACKGROUND The parties met and began cohabitating in 2003. In 2011, plaintiff and defendant began discussing marriage. The parties had lived together for years, but each had their own separate businesses and assets. Thus,...

FAMILY LAW 51: Defendant-father’s motion for a change of custody and parenting time was not granted in error because all of the trial court’s findings of fact were not against the great weight of the evidence.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant have three children together—ET, KT, and CT. Plaintiff and defendant’s relationship ended in 2013. Following the end of their relationship, the trial court entered a consent order for...

CRIMINAL LAW 13: A reasonable belief that a driver is operating his vehicle while intoxicated provides sufficient reasonable cause to conduct a search in the form of a PBT.

On the night of October 21, 2018, a Grand Traverse County Deputy Sheriff initiated a traffic stop on the basis that defendant’s vehicle had an expired license place. He confirmed this by means of a LEIN check and also discovered...

What does Client and Attorney Privilege Mean?

How much should you tell your lawyer? The fifth amendment protects U.S. citizens from incriminating themselves, but how does that work with your attorney. We get this question all the time. Many people have heard about attorney confidentiality,...

DIVORCE 43: TRIAL COURT’S DECISION REGARDING MODIFYING SPOUSAL SUPPORT MUST BE AFFIRMED UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY INEQUITABLE

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1990 and divorced in 2013. The parties’ consent judgment of divorce provided, among other things, that defendant would pay plaintiff modifiable spousal support in the amount of $3,200 per...

DIVORCE 42: LANGUAGE IN THE PARTIES’ JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND MUST BE INTERPRETED AS WRITTEN

BACKGROUND This case arises out of the divorce of the parties. The parties mediated a settlement and the Court entered a Judgment of Divorce based on that agreement. The provision of the judgment on appeal concerns plaintiff’s...

WILLS AND TRUST 7: ESTABLISHED VALUATION METHODS MUST BE USED TO DETERMINE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND GIFTS, WITHOUT DELIVERY, ARE NOT VALID

Plaintiff’s father and plaintiff’s stepmother (defendant) married around 1981. In 2002, the two executed an “Agreement of Trust” prepared by their estate planning attorney. The Agreement of Trust created a Trust...

Page: 1 2 3 456 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - All