Action to set aside a settlement agreement; Enforceability of an agreement to settle a pending lawsuit; MCR 2.507(G); Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. Walcon Corp.; Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indiana Ins. Co.; The essential elements of a valid contract; Hess v. Cannon Twp.; Kloian v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC; Stanton v. Dachille; Failure to preserve an issue; Walters v. Nadell

The court held that the trial court did not err by enforcing the settlement agreement between the appellants (Barbara and Patricia) and their brothers, the appellees (Robert and James), dismissing all pending objections and the petition, and closing the decedent’s (their mother) estate. The parties entered into the settlement agreement in order to resolve various claims surrounding decedent’s estate. On appeal, the court rejected appellants’ argument that the trial court erred in finding that a settlement agreement existed when it did not contain all material elements to resolve the case. They contended the agreement lacked mutual assent. It noted there was “nothing ambiguous about how the valuation of” an investment company was to be calculated, “nothing confusing” about the value of stock or distribution of the decedent’s personal property, and appellants released their claims as to medical and other expenses. Finally, it held that “any issue regarding fees associated with decedent’s timeshare was not preserved” for appeal and, in any event, “a review of the record shows that counsel for” appellants “stated that in receiving the timeshare in Nassau, ‘Any fees or expenses incurred in the transfer are the responsibility of'" appellants. Affirmed.