Anthony D Amante v. Teresa M Amante
331542
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Parties reached an oral mediated settlement in a Michigan divorce; a consent judgment of divorce was entered reflecting that settlement but was silent on spousal support.
- Plaintiff (Anthony Amante) contended the settlement and judgment should have included a provision forever barring spousal support.
- Plaintiff relied on: (1) an email from defense counsel stating spousal support was "forever barred," (2) a draft judgment from defense counsel that included an alimony bar, and (3) mediator notes suggesting spousal support had been discussed and barred.
- Defendant (Teresa Amante) and defense counsel denied any mutual agreement to bar spousal support; defense counsel stated the draft provision was his unilateral mistake and defendant wanted to reserve spousal support.
- Plaintiff moved to amend the judgment and for relief from judgment and alternatively sought remand to the arbitrator per a contractual clause about disputes over judgment language. The trial court denied relief; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel's email constituted a binding agreement under MCR 2.507(G) | Email acknowledging spousal support was forever barred is a signed writing binding counsel and client | Email was not an offer/acceptance modifying the recorded oral settlement; parties did not negotiate by email | Court: No plain error; email did not form a binding agreement under MCR 2.507(G) |
| Whether extrinsic evidence can be used to add a spousal-support bar to the silent judgment | Extrinsic evidence (emails, mediator notes) shows parties agreed to bar alimony and omission was a mistake | Settlement was unambiguous and silent on spousal support, which under MCR 3.211(B) reserves the issue | Court: No plain error; judgment silence reserves spousal support; no ambiguity for extrinsic evidence to resolve |
| Whether mutual mistake excused omission of the alimony bar | Both counsel and mediator forgot to include an agreed-upon bar; thus mutual mistake justifies amendment | Any omission was unilateral (defense counsel) or not mutually relied upon; no shared mistake | Court: No mutual mistake; omission was not a shared, relied-on error; cannot amend judgment on that basis |
| Whether dispute should be remanded to arbitrator under the judgment's language-dispute clause | Clause requiring arbitrator to decide "any disputes regarding the judgment language" mandates arbitration of this dispute | The judgment is silent on spousal support (issue reserved), so this is not a language-interpretation dispute for the arbitrator | Court: No abuse of discretion; dispute not within arbitrator clause because the issue was reservation by silence |
Key Cases Cited
- Myland v Myland, 290 Mich. App. 691 (contract principles govern settlement agreements in divorce)
- Vittiglio v Vittiglio, 297 Mich. App. 391 (oral agreements placed on the record can form binding settlement agreements)
- In re Lett Estate, 314 Mich. App. 587 (relief from contract only for fraud, duress, mutual mistake, severe stress)
- Kloian v Domino’s Pizza LLC, 273 Mich. App. 449 (email signatures can satisfy MCR 2.507 subscription requirement when emails form the agreement)
- Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich. 459 (extrinsic evidence admissible only to resolve contractual ambiguities)
- Kaftan v Kaftan, 300 Mich. App. 661 (definition of mutual mistake in contract context)
- Clark v Al-Amin, 309 Mich. App. 387 (requirement that mistake be shared and relied upon for mutual-mistake relief)
- Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich. App. 404 (standard of plain-error review for unpreserved appellate issues)
- Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich. App. 1 (issues must be raised and decided below to be preserved on appeal)
- Duray Dev, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143 (elements for plain-error relief)
- McNeil v Caro Cmty Hosp., 167 Mich. App. 492 (general principle on relief from judgments)