BONNIE A ARLT V NORMAN E ARLT JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BONNIE A. ARLT,
UNPUBLISHED
February 12, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 243540
Presque Isle Circuit Court
LC No. 02-002494-CZ
NORMAN E. ARLT, JR.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition in this fraud action. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff brought this action asserting that defendant committed fraud in misrepresenting
the value of the parties’ assets in a prior divorce action. The trial court granted summary
disposition to defendant, concluding that plaintiff’s remedy was to file a motion for relief from
judgment, not an independent action.
In Triplett v St. Amour, 444 Mich 170, 178-179; 507 NW2d 194 (1993), the Supreme
Court held that there is no independent cause of action to recover damages for a fraudulently
induced settlement because the court rules provide effective remedies and deterrence. See also
Daoud v De Leau, 455 Mich 181, 200; 565 NW2d 639 (1997). The balanced approach given in
MCR 2.612 to competing public policy considerations concerning the recognition of fraud suits
and the finality of judgments would be upset if plaintiffs were allowed to file fraud actions.
Triplett, supra at 178.
In Nederlander v Nederlander, 205 Mich App 123, 124; 517 NW2d 768 (1994), the
plaintiff brought an independent fraud action based on a claim that the defendant misrepresented
the value of marital assets during divorce proceedings. This Court relied on Triplett to conclude
that the trial court properly granted summary disposition of the independent fraud claim where
MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c) allows a party to seek redress for intrinsic fraud. Id. at 126.
Plaintiff relies on Courtney v Feldstein, 147 Mich App 70, 74; 382 NW2d 734 (1985), for
the proposition that a party can maintain an independent cause of action for fraud during a
divorce proceeding. However, Courtney was decided on res judicata principles, and did not
-1-
consider the effect of the court rule. The Nederlander Court examined the Courtney decision
and concluded that the issue was controlled by Triplett. Furthermore, the Nederlander decision
is binding precedent. MCR 7.215 (J)(1).
The trial court properly granted summary disposition where plaintiff’s remedy was to file
a motion for relief from judgment. Triplett, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
