Motion for relief from judgment related to dissolution of a law firm; MCR 2.612(C)(1) & (3); Commencement of a civil action; MCR 2.101(A) & (B); Distinguishing Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of MI v. Buckallew; Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC)

Holding that the trial court erred by relying on MCR 2.612 in dismissing plaintiff-attorney’s challenge to a settlement agreement she executed with defendant-attorney (her former law partner), the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant and remanded. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the MRPC, claiming defendant had engaged in fraudulent, unlawful, and improper conduct in connection with the parties’ settlement agreement, which covered the dissolution of their law firm. In granting defendant summary disposition, the trial court relied predominantly on MCR 2.612. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by treating the settlement agreement as a “proceeding” that was subject to MCR 2.612. “[T]he plain language of MCR 2.612 contemplates a judgment, order, or proceeding arising out of or connected to an action in court. MCR 2.612(C)(1) speaks of a ‘party’ seeking relief by ‘motion,’ which clearly and unambiguously envisions circumstances in which a court took an action during litigation that one of the parties now, by motion, seeks to have set aside for one of the enumerated reasons in MCR 2.612(C)(1).” A person challenging a settlement agreement that was “reached outside of or untethered to a court proceeding or case could not simply file a ‘motion’ in court.” The court distinguished Buckallew, noting that, in this case, there was “no court involvement whatsoever with respect to the dispute between the parties, the facilitation, and the” settlement agreement.