Dominique Johnson v. Jonathan Johnson
365352
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Dominique Johnson (plaintiff) and Jonathan Johnson (defendant) divorced in April 2021; at the time, defendant had a pending personal injury lawsuit from a car accident.
- The divorce judgment awarded plaintiff 50% of the personal injury lawsuit proceeds.
- Defendant later settled his lawsuit for $4.8 million, after an initial $12 million verdict.
- Plaintiff moved to enforce her share; defendant sought clarification, arguing only lost wages (not pain and suffering) were marital property, or alternatively, for relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f).
- The trial court "clarified" the judgment to limit plaintiff's share to lost wages, not the entire settlement, and plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly clarified the divorce judgment's language on the division of lawsuit proceeds | The divorce judgment granted her 50% of all proceeds (including pain and suffering); no ambiguity existed. | Only lost wages were marital property; recovery for pain and suffering should remain defendant’s separate asset. | The trial court erred—there was no ambiguity, and the ruling improperly modified, not clarified, the original judgment. |
| Whether the judgment could be substantively modified via a clarification order | Modification improper without standard met under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f). | If a full share was intended, relief should be granted under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f). | Only if MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) standards are met can such modification occur; remanded for consideration under the rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Greene, 357 Mich 196 (Mich. 1959) (clarification of judgment permissible when ambiguous)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 307 Mich 366 (Mich. 1943) (court must look to findings of fact and law to ascertain judgment intent)
- Neville v. Neville, 295 Mich App 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (clarification cannot change parties' substantive rights)
- Bers v. Bers, 161 Mich App 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (distinguishing between clarification and modification of a judgment)
- Barbier v. Barbier, 45 Mich App 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973) (trial court may clarify without altering substantive rights)
- Boucher v. Boucher, 34 Mich App 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971) (property settlements in divorce may be clarified, but not modified substantively)