Case ID: mich_483/html/1006-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Markman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Saab v Farah,
    Nos. 137664 and 137665;
   Court of Appeals Nos. 278384 and 278772.

Markman, J.

(dissenting). Because I believe the lower courts erred in their interpretation of the parties’ property settlement agreement (PSA), I dissent. In particular, I believe the trial court erred in determining that the PSA only allowed for the division of “marital assets.” Instead, the parties stated that any non-disclosed “real or personal assets,” without further limitation, were subject to judicial division. By contrast, when the parties intended to refer to “marital assets,” they clearly knew how to communicate this, because they used this specific phrase in other provisions of the PSA.

Corrigan, J. I join the statement of Justice Markman.