Summary
In Buckallew, the probate court had approved the settlement agreement, and the circuit court entered an order dismissing the action on the basis of the settlement agreement.
Summary of this case from Smith v. ForrestOpinion
No. 126340.
December 28, 2004.
SC: 126340.
Summary Disposition.
In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the Kalamazoo Circuit Court is affirmed for the reasons stated in this order. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties agreed to settle defendant's wrongful death action for $300,000. After defendant dismissed the action, plaintiff refused to pay the agreed settlement amount because it exceeded its no-fault policy limit for the underlying accident, a fact that neither party realized when they settled. The parties' settlement and dismissal of the earlier action took the place of a court judgment and, for purposes of this case, was tantamount to a judgment. As such, plaintiff must seek relief under the principles set forth in MCR 2.612, governing relief from judgment. But the facts of this case do not warrant such relief. Plaintiff's mistake in understanding its own policy is not a mistake or excusable neglect that can be a basis for relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a). Plaintiff had access to all the necessary information, and its error is not excused by its own carelessness or lack of due diligence. See 3 Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (5th ed), p 507; Lark v Detroit Edison Co, 99 Mich App 280, 283 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 906 (1981). Reported below: 262 Mich App 169.
KELLY, J. ( dissenting). I would deny leave to appeal. I agree with the Court of Appeals analysis and see no reason to disturb its opinion.