Ferrera v. Ferrera

Michigan Court of Appeals

Ferrera v. Ferrera

168 N.W.2d 475, 16 Mich. App. 661, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1458

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1969

DocketDocket 6,378

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 475 (Ferrera v. Ferrera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferrera v. Ferrera, 168 N.W.2d 475, 16 Mich. App. 661, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

*662 Per Curiam.

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. 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. 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.

Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any ground for relief and was properly dismissed.

Affirmed. Plaintiff to pay costs of appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*662 Per Curiam.

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. 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. 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.

Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any ground for relief and was properly dismissed.

Affirmed. Plaintiff to pay costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 475, 16 Mich. App. 661, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrera-v-ferrera-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack