A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Thus, the trial court properly found that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the release. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in finding that they failed to challenge the release provision of the Stock Redemption Agreements. Although plaintiffs did make a belated attempt at tender, there is no other evidence that they ever attempted to set aside the release, and it appears that the trial court properly dismissed their claims on that basis. Even assuming that plaintiffs did challenge the release, we conclude that defendants were still entitled to summary disposition.
Plaintiffs argue that they challenged the release below on the basis that it was procured by fraud.
Indeed, a release may be challenged on this ground, but not until plaintiffs tender the consideration they received in exchange for the release. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must tender any consideration received in exchange for a release prior to or simultaneously with the filing of a suit that contravenes that release. Indeed, a plaintiff must tender before he may even attempt to repudiate the release. This argument is without merit. To allow a grace period for tender after the commencement of a lawsuit would undermine the very rule announced by this Court in Carey .