Ferrera v. Ferrera, Docket No. 6378
| Decision Date | 27 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6378,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 168 N.W.2d 475,16 Mich.App. 661 |
| Parties | Francesca FERRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rocco FERRERA, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Sheets, Detroit, for appellant.
Anthony A. Vermeulen, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her motion to revise property and alimony provisions of a decree of divorce. The parties were divorced in July, 1958, by a decree which awarded plaintiff a property settlement of $18,000 and specifically denied her any alimony. Plaintiff filed the present action on July 19, 1968, seeking amendment of the divorce decree to provide alimony and revise the property settlement, and alleging fraud in procurement of the stipulation on which the 1958 decree was based.
The trial court correctly ruled that it could not amend or modify the decree of divorce to provide for alimony where the original decree denied any alimony. Ballentine v. Ballentine (1959), 357 Mich. 7, 97 N.W.2d 620. Similarly, the courts cannot modify a property settlement embodied in a final decree except on a showing of fraud. Pierson v. Pierson (1958), 351 Mich. 637, 88 N.W.2d 500. Plaintiff alleges fraud but fails to set forth any facts which would support such allegation or apprise defendant of what he is required to defend. See Dutkiewicz v. Bartkowiak (1964), 372 Mich. 386, 126 N.W.2d 705.
Plaintiff's complaint failed to state any ground for relief and was properly dismissed.
Affirmed. Plaintiff to pay costs of appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boucher v. Boucher
...else would be against equity and good conscience. The defendant contends those reasons are insufficient, citing Ferrera v. Ferrera (1969), 16 Mich.App. 661, 168 N.W.2d 475; Keeney v. Keeney (1965), 374 Mich. 660, 133 N.W.2d 199; Edgar v. Edgar (1962), 366 Mich. 580, 115 N.W.2d 286; Stellwag......
-
Hilley v. Hilley, Docket No. 77715
...entered into between the parties. Mere allegations of fraud absent some factual evidence are insufficient. Ferrara v. Ferrara, 16 Mich.App. 661, 168 N.W.2d 475 (1969). The decision of the trial court in refusing to set aside the property settlement was III. Did the trial court err by not re......
-
Ovaitt v. Ovaitt
...settlement agreements cannot be set aside except for fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or comparable reasons. Ferrera v. Ferrera, 16 Mich.App. 661, 168 N.W.2d 475 (1969). Support agreements such as the one involved in this case, however, are subject to court In the absence of Michigan decision......
-
Kaleal v. Kaleal
...motion and in the trial judge's opinion, are not challenged by the plaintiff.5 A few of these cases are Ferrera v. Ferrera, 16 Mich.App. 661, 168 N.W.2d 475 (1969); Mack v. Mack, 283 Mich. 365, 278 N.W. 99 (1938); and Marrobie v. Marrobie, 334 Mich. 447; 54 N.W.2d 623 ...