Joseph Ralph Ferrante v. Dragana Polovina
333457
Mich. Ct. App.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Parties divorced by consent judgment of divorce (JOD) on Feb 5, 2016; they share two minor children who were in high school at the time.
- JOD included a provision: "parties shall equally share in the expense of all agreed upon extra-curricular activities."
- At the time of the JOD, the children were already enrolled in soccer, a senior trip, and a vacation; defendant sought half of those costs after the JOD.
- Defendant moved (Apr 28, 2016) to compel plaintiff to pay $2,323 for one-half of those extra-curricular expenses; plaintiff opposed, asserting he had told defendant earlier he could not pay and that the JOD barred pre-existing claims.
- Trial court found parties were aware and had acquiesced to the activities at the time of the JOD and ordered plaintiff to pay $2,232 (rounded in opinion) to defendant; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff must pay half of extra-curricular expenses already in existence when JOD was entered | Ferrante: JOD bars pre-existing claims; he did not agree to pay those existing expenses | Polovina: JOD required equal sharing of agreed-upon activities, and parties knew children were participating at entry, so Ferrante acquiesced | Held: Court affirmed — JOD unambiguously required sharing, and plaintiff acquiesced to pay one-half of existing activities |
| Interpretation standard for consent JOD language | Ferrante: plain reading bars his liability for pre-JOD expenses | Polovina: language and extrinsic facts show intent to share current activities | Held: Consent judgments construed as contracts; where language is clear, it is enforced as written; extrinsic evidence used if ambiguous |
Key Cases Cited
- Neville v. Neville, 295 Mich. App. 460 (discussing de novo review of trial court’s interpretation of a divorce judgment)
- Laffin v. Laffin, 280 Mich. App. 513 (consent judgment treated as contract; apply ordinary contract principles)
- Smith v. Smith, 278 Mich. App. 198 (where judgment language is ambiguous, interpretation is a question of fact and extrinsic evidence may be considered)