RONALD EUGENE BILOT V JANICE PEARL BILOT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RONALD EUGENE BILOT,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 209090
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 96-010967 DM
JANICE PEARL BILOT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Markman, P.J., and Saad and P.D. Houk,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment of divorce. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce from defendant. On the date set for trial, the parties
engaged in extensive negotiations in an attempt to reach a settlement. The parties stated on the record
that they had agreed that the marital home was to be awarded to defendant. Furthermore, if defendant
sold the home, plaintiff was to have the opportunity to purchase it at fair market value. The parties were
unable to agree on language to be included in the judgment to effectuate plaintiff’s right to purchase the
home. The trial court directed the parties to resolve the issue.
Both plaintiff and defendant drafted a proposed judgment and moved for entry of judgment.
Both proposed judgments contained language designed to effectuate plaintiff’s right to purchase the
marital home. At the court’s direction, each party submitted a written statement concerning the issues
that it believed remained unresolved. Defendant indicated that in order to avoid a trial, she was willing
to abide by the court’s choice between the competing provisions concerning sale of the home. The
court chose the language proposed by plaintiff. The final judgment provided that defendant would not
have the right to sell the marital home without first giving plaintiff the right to purchase the home at fair
market value, less one-half of the customary real estate commission. Fair market value was to be
determined by averaging the appraisals obtained by each party, or by another method agreed on by the
parties.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
We review a trial court’s findings of fact for clear error, and its ultimate disposition de novo.
Edwards v Edwards, 192 Mich App 559, 562; 481 NW2d 769 (1992).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by entering a judgment of divorce based on an
ostensible settlement reached by the parties in light of the fact that he denied the existence of a
settlement. MCR 2.507(H). We disagree and affirm. Whether a settlement has been reached is a
question governed by the principles applicable to the construction and interpretation of contracts.
Walbridge Aldinger Co v Walcon Corp, 207 Mich App 566, 571; 525 NW2d 489 (1994). A valid
contract requires agreement on all material terms. Fisk v Fisk, 328 Mich 570, 574; 44 NW2d 184
(1950). Here, the parties agreed on the material terms relevant to any sale of the marital home. The
parties agreed that while defendant was under no obligation to sell the home, if she decided to do so,
plaintiff was entitled to have the opportunity to purchase it at fair market value. By accepting the trial
court’s choice of language to be included in the final judgment, defendant indicated her willingness to
agree with plaintiff’s position. The trial court’s finding that the parties disagreed on the language to be
used to effectuate plaintiff’s opportunity was not clearly erroneous. Edwards, supra. The trial court’s
choice of plaintiff’s proposed language did not change the substantive rights of the parties, but simply
clarified an ambiguity. Bers v Bers, 161 Mich App 457, 463-464; 411 NW2d 732 (1987).
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. Houk
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.