Now Accepting New Clients!



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.


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.”


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.


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

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000