Tonya K Cook v. Frank L Boersema
328923
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Tonya K. Cook (plaintiff) and Frank L. Boersema (defendant) divorced; circuit court entered a judgment of divorce on July 30, 2015 dividing property and awarding one year spousal support to Cook.
- After trial, parties testified they each believed Cook was responsible for repaying a specific line-of-credit charge against the marital home.
- Defendant claimed on appeal the circuit court failed to enforce a settlement agreement placed on the record regarding that obligation.
- Defendant did not raise this specific settlement-enforcement argument in the circuit court (unpreserved issue).
- The Court of Appeals elected to review the unpreserved argument under the plain-error standard but concluded no binding settlement existed and therefore no plain error occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement agreement existed and should be enforced | Cook maintained the parties’ testimony did not create an enforceable, on-the-record settlement; court’s property division was appropriate | Boersema argued the parties placed a binding settlement agreement on the record requiring enforcement (assignment of line-of-credit obligation to Cook) | No binding settlement existed; no plain error in not enforcing any purported agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Thames v. Thames, 191 Mich. App. 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (an objection on one ground does not preserve a different ground on appeal)
- Gaudreau v. Kelly, 298 Mich. App. 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (issues raised first on appeal are ordinarily not reviewed)
- Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (circumstances that allow appellate courts to overlook preservation requirements)
- Hogg v. Four Lakes Ass’n, Inc., 307 Mich. App. 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (plain-error standard applies to unpreserved issues)
- Kern v. Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich. App. 333 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (three-part test to avoid forfeiture under plain-error rule)
- Myland v. Myland, 290 Mich. App. 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (existence and interpretation of contracts reviewed de novo)
- Kloian v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich. App. 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (contract formation requires offer, acceptance, and mutual assent)