Renelle Foreman v. Dennis Walter Foreman ( 2006 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
May 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
128874 & (63) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
RENELLE FOREMAN, Marilyn Kelly
Plaintiff-Appellee, Maura D. Corrigan
v SC: 128874 Robert P. Young, Jr.
COA: 250412 Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
Oakland CC: 2002-037507-CZ
DENNIS WALTER FOREMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
strike plaintiff-appellee’s reply brief is DENIED as moot.
TAYLOR, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows:
I would grant leave to appeal. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in July 2000.
After mediation, the parties reached a property settlement that was incorporated, but not
merged, into the judgment of divorce. More than two years after the judgment was
entered, plaintiff brought the instant action claiming that defendant fraudulently induced
her to enter into the property settlement. In Nederlander v Nederlander, 205 Mich App
123, 127 (1994), the Court of Appeals held that a party who suspects that the other party
has committed fraud during a divorce proceeding must seek relief under MCR
2.612(C)(1)(c) and (2) within one year after the judgment. However, in Grace v Grace,
unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 23, 1995 (Docket
No. 163344), the Court of Appeals distinguished Nederlander from those cases in which
the underlying property settlement had only been incorporated, but not merged, into the
judgment of divorce. The court held that the property settlement constituted a separate
contract to which the fraud claim could properly apply. I would grant leave to appeal to
determine whether the Grace exception to Nederlander, vitiating the requirement in
MCR 2.612 that a claim of fraud in a divorce action be asserted within one year of
judgment, should be adopted by this Court.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 26, 2006 _________________________________________
p0523 Clerk