Postjudgment divorce dispute; Interpretation of a settlement agreement; Scope of an agreement to arbitrate; Attorney fees under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b)

In this postjudgment divorce dispute, the court held that the trial court’s interpretation of the parties’ settlement agreement (SA) as to arbitration “was consistent with the plain, unambiguous language in the” SA and the divorce judgment. It also upheld the award of attorney fees to defendant-ex-wife under MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b). Plaintiff challenged an order requiring him “to pay out-of-pocket for defendant’s then-existing and expert fees.” He argued the trial court erred in not honoring an agreement to arbitrate language disputes in the SA and the judgment. The court disagreed. The SA showed that they “agreed to arbitrate certain issues. However, the parties did not expressly agree to arbitrate the interpretation and enforcement of the judgment” or the SA’s provisions. Rather, the judgment “clearly and unambiguously states that the trial court would ‘retain jurisdiction to interpret and enforce any and all provisions of’” the judgment, including those in the merged SA. The SA “expressly reserved arbitration for ‘any language disputes regarding any subsequent settlement documents’ that were necessary to finalize the divorce. Any” such disputes “were resolved by the parties’ execution of the documents. Once [they] were finalized, there were no language disputes to arbitrate. The parties also agreed to arbitrate ‘any disputed issues described in this Agreement as being subject to arbitration.’ But the [SA] does not state that plaintiff’s obligation to pay defendant’s then-existing attorney and professional fees was subject to arbitration. On the basis of this language, the trial court concluded that it could allow the parties to arbitrate the dispute, if they agreed, but it could not compel them to” do so. The court agreed that the trial “court was permitted to make a postjudgment ruling interpreting and applying its own judgment.” It also held that the trial court’s attorney fee “award was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” The evidence supported its finding that plaintiff violated the judgment’s terms “by failing to pay the professional fees for defendant’s financial expert and thus subjecting [her] to collections litigation. [She] requested $2,656.20 in costs and attorney’s fees incurred in seeking to enforce the” judgment, supported by itemized bills. The trial court awarded her $2,000 in fees. Affirmed.