From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rossi v. Transamerica

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 7, 1984
368 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

Docket No. 73205.

Decided November 7, 1984. Opinion on rehearing filed March 18, 1985.

Zeff, Zeff Materna (by A. Robert Zeff), for plaintiffs.

Denenberg, Tuffley, Thorpe, Bocan Patrick (by John L. Hopkins, Jr., and John A. Lawson), for Transamerica Car Leasing Company and Transamerica Title Insurance Company.

Buesser, Buesser, Snyder Blank (by Ronald F. Graham), for Michael G. Magallanes.

Before: M.J. KELLY, P.J., and BRONSON and C.W. SIMON, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Plaintiffs appealed as of right from an order of the circuit court enforcing a purported oral settlement agreement. On November 7, 1984, we affirmed in a published per curiam opinion. 138 Mich. App. 807; 360 N.W.2d 307 (1984) (KELLY, J., dissenting). Plaintiffs then filed an application for rehearing which we granted by order of January 30, 1985.

Upon reconsideration of the record and briefs, we reverse the trial court's order for the reasons stated earlier by Judge KELLY in his dissenting opinion. Plaintiffs in this case have consistently denied the existence of a binding settlement agreement on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds. We thus distinguish the instant case from the recent decision of this Court in Thomas v Michigan Mutual Ins Co, 138 Mich. App. 117; 358 N.W.2d 902 (1984), in which one of the members of this panel participated. Plaintiff in Thomas never denied the existence of a settlement agreement but expressly sought to revoke the offer to accept. Because we find that the parties in this case never entered into a binding settlement agreement, the trial court erred in equating oral communications between the parties' attorneys to a binding settlement agreement, contrary to GCR 1963, 507.9.

Reversed.

BRONSON, J., concurred.


I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in the original per curiam opinion for affirmance, 138 Mich. App. 807; 360 N.W.2d 307 (1984). Here, as in Thomas v Michigan Mutual Ins Co, 138 Mich. App. 117; 358 N.W.2d 902 (1984), appellants never denied entering into an oral settlement agreement. I would affirm.


Summaries of

Rossi v. Transamerica

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 7, 1984
368 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Rossi v. Transamerica

Case Details

Full title:ROSSI v TRANSAMERICA CAR LEASING COMPANY (ON REHEARING)

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 7, 1984

Citations

368 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
368 N.W.2d 880

Citing Cases

Brunet v. Decorative Engineering, Inc.

Rossi clearly supports the trial court's holding in this case. The Rossi majority's reasoning, however, was…

Metro Life v. Goolsby

This rule applies to settlement agreements. Rossi v Transamerica Car Leasing Co (On Rehearing), 141 Mich.…