- 17 -
Archambo v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 646 N.W.2d 170, 177 (Mich.
2002); UAW-GM Human Res. Ctr. v. KSL Recreation Corp., 579 N.W.2d
411, 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
The settlement agreement at issue here contains in paragraph
14.0 an express integration clause to the effect that “This
Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants with regard to matters set forth in
it”. Moreover, the estate has at no time so much as raised any
allegation of sham, fraud, illegality, or mistake. Accordingly,
the Court concludes that none of the threshold exceptions
enumerated by the Michigan courts are extant on these facts and,
thus, that application of the parol evidence rule will turn on
the presence or absence of ambiguity.
Respondent’s primary position in this litigation is that
unambiguous language of the settlement agreement afforded to
decedent the sole beneficial interest in the annuities and
establishes that her claims provided the sole consideration for
those periodic payments. The estate counters that the terms of
the agreement are susceptible to a reading under which all
plaintiffs held joint beneficial interests in all payments to be
made thereunder and all of their claims collectively provided the
consideration for any and all relief to be paid.
While the Court rules infra that both the settlement
agreement itself and the totality of the evidence in the record
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011