Divorce; Motion to enforce a consent judgment of divorce (JOD) relative to the property settlement; Quade v. Quade; Enforcing unambiguous contracts as written; Kendzierski v. Macomb Cnty.; Whether the language as to stock redemption proceeds in the JOD was ambiguous; Raska v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of MI; Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc.; Extrinsic evidence; Shay v. Aldrich; The parties’ intent

The court held that the trial court erred in determining the JOD was ambiguous. The plain language of ¶ 19 of the JOD indicated that the redemption proceeds were “to be calculated on a proportional basis, in relation to the amount of time [plaintiff-ex-husband] owned the stock while the parties were married and the total number of years” he owned the stock before redemption. Thus, the court reversed the order granting defendant-ex-wife’s motion to enforce a consent JOD relative to the property settlement. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by determining that the language as to his stock redemption proceeds in the JOD was ambiguous. He contended that it also “erred in its interpretation of the allegedly ambiguous provision of the JOD, when it found that the entirety of the proceeds should be halved, rather than distributing the proceeds proportionally on the basis of the amount of time” he owned the shares. The court held that “plaintiff correctly based his calculation of defendant’s marital portion on the total 102,857 shares of restricted stock” he owned when the JOD was entered. Defendant nevertheless claimed that the ambiguity of ¶ 19 (the division of plaintiff’s restricted stock redemption proceeds) of the JOD was “apparent because the parties disagree on the correct interpretation regarding the remainder of the paragraph, and notes that the trial court declared at multiple instances during the proceeding that it was ambiguous.” However, her interpretation of ¶ 19 would leave the final sentence of the paragraph, which set the date plaintiff received the stock shares as 4/20/11, “as surplusage. Were defendant to receive 50% of the redemption proceeds of the 102,857 shares, regardless of when the shares were redeemed, the date at which plaintiff received the shares would be irrelevant.” Thus, the trial court erred in finding the language of ¶ 19 of the JOD ambiguous. Further, even if the language of ¶ “19 of the JOD were found to be ambiguous” and it properly considered extrinsic evidence, “the trial court erred in determining that the intent of the parties was to give defendant 50% of the total redemption proceeds.”