Foreman v. Foreman, 714 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Foreman v. Foreman, 714 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Appalachian Railcar Services, Inc. v. Boatright Enterprises, Inc. (miwd, 2008-03-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Appalachian Railcar Services, Inc. v. Boatright Enterprises, Inc. (2×)
W.D. Mich. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Foreman v. Foreman, 266 Mich.App. 132 , 701 N.W.2d 167, 175 (2005) (“Representations by an individual who has personal knowledge of the value or condition of land or property cannot be construed as a mere expression of opinion, but rather constitute a statement of fact.”) (citing Groening v. Opsata, 323 Mich. 73 , 34 N.W.2d 560 (1948)), app. denied, 475 Mich. 863 , 714 N.W.2d 288 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Renelle FOREMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dennis Walter FOREMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
128874 & (63). COA No. 250412.
Michigan Supreme Court.
May 26, 2006.
714 N.W.2d 288
Taylor.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to strike plaintiff-appellee's reply brief is DENIED as moot.

TAYLOR, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows:

I would grant leave to appeal. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in July 2000. After mediation, the parties reached a property settlement that was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce. More than two years after the judgment was entered, plaintiff brought the instant action claiming that defendant fraudulently induced her to enter into the property settlement. In Nederlander v. Nederlander, 205 Mich.App. 123, 127, 517 N.W.2d 768 (1994), the Court of Appeals held that a party who suspects that the other party has committed fraud during a divorce proceeding must seek relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c) and (2) within one year after the judgment. However, in Grace v. Grace, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 23, 1995 (Docket No. 163344), the Court of Appeals[*289] distinguished Nederlander from those cases in which the underlying property settlement had only been incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce. The court held that the property settlement constituted a separate contract to which the fraud claim could properly apply. I would grant leave to appeal to determine whether the Grace exception to Nederlander, vitiating the requirement in MCR 2.612 that a claim of fraud in a divorce action be asserted within one year of judgment, should be adopted by this Court.