 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carrell v. Carrell12/9/2003
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant/counterplaintiff Neal Carrell appeals as of right from the trial court's November 2, 2001 opinion and order granting plaintiff/counterdefendant's Jeanette Carrell's motion for relief from judgment. We affirm.
In this case we are asked to determine whether the trial court properly granted plaintiff relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f), vacating the portion of the parties' settlement agreement regarding their pensions. To address this issue we must review the record to find out if the trial court properly determined that extraordinary factors existed to warrant such action. Because the evidence revealed a large disparity between the parties' pensions and the parties had expressed a desire to reach an equitable settlement, we find no abuse of discretion. We also find that case law does not support defendant's argument that the coverture fraction must be used to determine the premarital portion of a pension.
Plaintiff filed for divorce on April 22, 1998, after nearly ten years of marriage to defendant. On July 20, 1998, the parties reached a settlement agreement disposing of marital property and placed the agreement on the record. Under the agreement, each party received his and her own pension. When the settlement was reached, however, neither party had conducted discovery to determine the precise value of the pensions. It is undisputed that defendant claimed he did not know the overall value of his pension at the time of the settlement conference. Plaintiff subsequently testified that defendant led her to believe his pension was worth approximately $15,000.
After reaching the negotiated settlement, plaintiff soon discovered that the value of defendant's pension was much higher, and refused to sign the divorce judgment. On February 11, 1999, defendant brought a motion before the trial court to enter the divorce judgment that was placed on the record. The trial court granted defendant's motion on May 14, 1999. Less than a month later, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) and (C)(1)(c). The trial court ultimately granted plaintiff's motion under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) and modified the divorce judgment so each party would receive fifty percent of the marital portion of the other's pension upon their retirement.
On appeal, defendant contests the trial court's finding that extraordinary circumstances existed in this case to warrant the setting aside of the pension provision in the parties' negotiated property settlement. A trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error on appeal. But " trial court's decision on a motion to set aside a prior judgment is discretionary and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the record, this Court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.
A trial court may grant relief from a final judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1) on the following grounds:
(a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(b) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under MCR 2.611(B).
(c) Fraud (intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.
(f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
In Heugel v Heugel , we held that a trial court could set aside a parties' property settlement agreement under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) if the facts established "extraordinary circumstances." We further reasserted the discretion afforded a trial court's decision to grant relief from judgment
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|