Court Opinion

ID: 9715358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:01:13.495922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:33.859275
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a
circuit court order enforcing an oral settlement agreement. A settlement agreement is a contract governed by the principles of law applicable to contracts generally. Mastaw v Naiukow, 105 Mich App 25, 28; 306 NW2d 378 (1981). In Booth Fisheries Co v Alpena Circuit Judge, 170 Mich 611, 615-616; 135 NW 1063 (1912), the Court explained:
"Settlements of disputed matters and compromises of unsettled claims are favored by the law, and it will be presumed that parties consult their own interests in making them. Usually they will not be interfered with in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, and then only when the party who seeks to rescind returns to the other party what he has received by virtue of the settlement. * * * Nor will such settlement be set aside because one of the parties did not understand it or its legal effect.” (Citations omitted.)
Accord, Streeter v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 340 Mich 510, 517-518; 65 NW2d 760 (1954); Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc v *810Wayne County Board of Road Comm’rs, 59 Mich App 117, 122; 229 NW2d 338 (1975).
Plaintiffs do not contend that their attorney did not have both apparent and actual authority to enter into a settlement agreement or that their attorney did not actually agree to the oral settlement at issue. Instead, plaintiffs state their position as follows:
"The actual value of the proposed structured settlement was not explained to Appellants by their counsel, and when Appellants discovered the true value of the settlement, they realized it was inequitable and rejected it.”
Because plaintiffs merely rely on a claimed unilateral misunderstanding of the meaning and effect of the settlement, plaintiffs’ arguments are without merit. It was therefore unnecessary for the circuit court to allow plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence to support their claim of unilateral misunderstanding, and the circuit court did not err by enforcing the oral settlement agreement.
The dissent’s reliance on GCR 1963, 507.9 is misplaced. That subrule provides:
"Agreements To Be in Writing. No private agreement or consent between the parties to a cause, or their attorneys respecting the proceedings in a cause which is denied by either party, is binding, unless the same has been made in open court, or unless evidence thereof is in writing subscribed by the party or his attorney against whom the same is alleged.” (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiffs have not denied either in circuit court or on appeal that their attorney made the agreement at issue.
Affirmed.