PENINSULA COPPER INDUSTRIES INC V CLARK PELLEGRINI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PENINSULA COPPER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 228210
Houghton Circuit Court
LC No. 99-010778-CK
CLARK PELLEGRINI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff brought this action asserting that defendant breached a settlement agreement in
other litigation. That agreement provides in part:
4. MONETARY CONSIDERATION AND LIEN: Pellegrini agrees to pay PCI
the sum of $35,000.00; provided, however, that such payment shall be made only
out of any proceeds recovered by Pellegrini whether by settlement, judgment or
arbitration arising out of the matters alleged and related to the consolidated
litigation currently pending in the Houghton County Circuit Court identified by
court file Nos. 93-8435-CZ, 93-8730-CK and 93-14944-CM, and, provided
further, that interest at the rate applicable to judgments shall be paid on said
amount from September 1, 1996 to the date of payment if the Pellegrini recovery
by arbitration or judgment is subject to such interest.
The litigation mentioned was resolved by a settlement agreement, which contained the
following terms:
In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties agree
as follows:
A. Ventures agrees to pay to Superior National Bank, custodian for Clark
L. Pellegrini IRA, on or before February 15, 1999, the sum of $50,000.00
representing repayment in full of that certain promissory note given by Ventures
-1-
to Pellegrini’s IRA dated August 28, 1991, plus the additional sum of $60,000.00
representing all interest and collection costs associated with said promissory note.
Upon payment of said amounts, Pellegrini shall cause the return to Ventures of
the original promissory note.
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff’s claim. Dillon
v DeNooyer Chevrolet Geo, 217 Mich App 163, 168; 550 NW2d 846 (1996). This Court will
review the record de novo to determine whether the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Westfield Companies v Grand Valley Health Plan, 224 Mich App 385, 387; 568
NW2d 854 (1997).
The primary goal in interpreting contracts is to determine and enforce the parties’ intent.
Old Kent Bank v Sobczak, 243 Mich App 57, 63; 620 NW2d 663 (2000). To do so, this Court
reads the agreement as a whole and attempts to apply the plain language of the contract itself. Id.
It is axiomatic that if a term is unambiguous and no reasonable person could differ with respect
to the application of the term to undisputed material facts, then the court should grant summary
disposition to the proper party pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Henderson v State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co, 460 Mich 348, 353; 596 NW2d 190 (1999).
There is no ambiguity in the settlement agreement. Defendant was required to pay
plaintiff from “any proceeds” recovered by a settlement arising out of the underlying litigation.
No conditions were placed on that recovery. There is no support for defendant’s claim that
payments made to an IRA cannot be considered proceeds. The trial court properly granted
summary disposition as a matter of law under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
