Court Opinion

ID: 9709606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:52:03.092629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:50.465884
License: Public Domain

White, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Defendant was represented by counsel at the deposition. The terms of the settlement were placed on the record made through the court reporter and *437reduced to writing in the form of a transcript, the accuracy of which defendant does not challenge. Under oath, defendant stated his understanding of, and consent to, the terms of the settlement agreement. Defendant further stated that he understood that he did not have to accept the agreement, that he was forgoing a trial by judge or jury by accepting the agreement, and that he wanted the court to approve the settlement. Several days later, defendant discharged his attorney and sought to disavow the agreement. He did not challenge the terms of the settlement or that he had agreed to it at the time of the deposition. Rather, he asserted that his agreement was procured by duress. The circuit court held a hearing and found no duress. Under these circumstances, the circuit court did not err in concluding that MCR 2.507(H) did not preclude enforcement of the settlement.
Rossi v Transamerica Car Leasing Co, 138 Mich App 807; 360 NW2d 307 (1984), On Rehearing, 141 Mich App 403; 368 NW2d 880 (1985), involved an oral agreement of settlement arrived at through oral negotiations of the attorneys. The plaintiffs consistently denied the existence of an agreement on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds regarding the terms. Rossi (On Rehearing), 141 Mich App 404. The instant case is distinguishable. Here, defendant, under oath before a court reporter, personally expressed his understanding and satisfaction. I conclude the record made before the court reporter, including the terms of the settlement and defendant’s agreement under oath, later transcribed and submitted to the court, satisfies the requirements of MCR 2.507(H) and is tantamount to a written agreement subscribed by defendant.
I would affirm.