The process by which this issue arises is somewhat confusing, but basically the facts are that:
Parent has two children. Original trust leaves residue to his children 50-50; and if either child predeceases, the share of predeceased child goes to the descendants of the deceased child.
One child dies and then the parent becomes demented, subject to guardianship and conservatorship. Conservator petitions the trial court for instruction on the validity of a trust amendment which may or may not have been signed. No signed copy is found. The purported amendment was made after the death of the child, and if valid, would leave the entire residue to the surviving child and nothing to the descendants of the deceased child.
Matter is mediated and the surviving child and descendants of the deceased child reach an agreement regarding the division of the residue, which agreement is approved by the trial court.
Subsequently, the child who would have received everything under the purported trust amendment announces that he has found the signed amendment, and seeks to set aside the order approving the settlement pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1).
The trial court denies the motion to set aside the order, and the Court of Appeals affirms.
In Re Frank M. Lambrecht, Jr. Trust (click on name to read the case) is unpublished, but I think it does a reasonably good job looking at what it takes to set aside a settlement agreement, and probably gets the right result in what is no doubt a very close case.
There are several grounds on which the agreement (or more accurately, the court order adopting the agreement) is challenged, all of which come under MCR 2.612(C)(1).
MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) – Mutual Mistake. Court of Appeals holds that while it may well have been a mutual mistake of a material fact that no signed amendment existed, the parties all knew that it was possible that one might subsequently be found, and that possibility was presumably factored into the value they placed on the case when they settled. So, unlike some other types of orders, an order approving a settlement agreement has already factored in the possibility of this type of mistake = no relief here.
MCR 2.612(C)(1)(b) – After Discovered Material Evidence. The Court of Appeals says that the child challenging the settlement agreement is correct that the discovery of the signed amendment would meet most of the requirements necessary to obtain relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(b), but on these facts this contesting child fails to meet the burden of showing that it could not have been found with “reasonable diligence.” The child seeking relief says the signed amendment was found in his parent’s desk drawer, but that he chose not to look there while his parent was alive, out of respect for that parent’s privacy. Basically, his deference on this point may have been admirable but does not obviate his obligation to use due diligence. There is no question he had access, and presumably the desk drawer would have been an obvious place to look. So that won’t work.
MCR 2.612(C)(1)(e) and (f) – No Longer Equitable and Other Grounds for Relief. The Court of Appeals notes that the settlement was not solely based on the fact that a signed amendment was missing. Rather, the settlement negotiations included other issues, including whether, even if the signed amendment were found, the amendment would be set aside for lack of capacity or undue influence. In light of the other variables in play during the settlement process, it could not be said that the resulting agreement is no longer fair.
Conclusion. This case neatly presents the issue of how and why an order approving a settlement agreement is different from other types of court orders when it comes to seeking relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1); and neatly applies the law to facts that make the decision a close call on several grounds.