Vittiglio v. Vittiglio
297 Mich. App. 391
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Consolidated appeals from a divorce judgment and sanctions awarded after mediation settlement.
- Mediation on January 26, 2011 produced an audio recording whereby the settlement was stated to be full, final, and binding, acknowledged by both parties and their lawyers.
- Plaintiff later refused to sign the consent judgment and sought to disavow the settlement; defendant sought costs and attorney fees; trial court denied dismissal and imposed sanctions against plaintiff as frivolous.
- Judgment of divorce entered; mediation settlement merged and incorporated into the judgment; sanctions upheld.
- Plaintiff challenged the binding nature of the audio-recorded settlement under MCR 3.216(H)(7) and argued statutory/fraud defenses; trial court and appellate review applied domestic-relations standards and de novo law review.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on binding consent and sanctions, including the amount of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the audio-recorded mediation settlement was binding. | Not binding since not a written/open-record domestic-relations settlement. | Settlement binding under MCR 3.216(H)(7) via audio recording in a domestic-relations matter. | Binding settlement; DR mediation process valid under MCR 3.216(H)(7). |
| Whether plaintiff validly consented to the settlement. | Consent procured by duress, fear of defendant, and misrepresentations by mediator/attorney. | Plaintiff understood terms, was represented, and consent was voluntary. | Consent valid; no proof of duress or incapacity. |
| Whether the settlement was unconscionable. | Terms were unconscionable given estate value and bargaining disadvantage. | Settlement terms were reasonable and not unconscionable in light of mediation. | Not unconscionable; terms did not shock conscience. |
| Whether the settlement was procured by fraud. | Misrepresentation about prenuptial agreement influenced settlement. | No false past or existing fact underlying consent; no reliance shown on misrepresentation about prenuptial validity. | Fraud not proven; no invalidating basis for settlement. |
| Whether sanctions for frivolous motions were appropriate and the amount reasonable. | Sanctions improperly imposed; burden of proof shift and evidentiary issues. | Motions were frivolous and used to delay; sanctions reasonable under MRPC 1.5 and MCR 2.114(E). | Sanctions affirmed; amount reasonable at $17,965. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keyser v Keyser, 182 Mich App 268 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for consent validity in settlement)
- Baker v Baker, 268 Mich App 578 (2005) (disfavoring post-settlement modifications to property settlements)
- Howard v Howard, 134 Mich App 391 (1984) (mental capacity to contract; illusory consent)
- Calo v Calo, 143 Mich App 749 (1985) (consent and understanding in divorce proceedings)
- Metro Life Ins Co v Goolsby, 165 Mich App 126 (1987) (courts may consider due process and factual context in settlement disputes)
- Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008) (reasonableness and burden of proving attorney-fee reasonableness)