-11-
Further, you have whether or not it’s impossible to perform the agreement
as drafted. It was drafted after a considerable period of time. And it’s different
from the Lentz case in the sense that this was drafted years ago and things changed.
Although the trial court did not thoroughly explain its reasoning, when the trial court’s statement
is considered in light of the parties’ closing arguments, the trial court appeared to be adopting one
of Thomas’s arguments in the trial court, namely—that, regardless of what the parties thought
when they signed the agreement in 2016, it was currently financially impossible for him to comply
with the portion of the agreement requiring him to pay spousal support to Dolores, particularly in
light of Thomas’s age and ability to keep working in the future.
Thomas’s argument wholly lacks merit, and the trial court erred by finding impossibility.
Thomas has identified nothing but a potential future change in circumstances that may affect his
financial ability to pay spousal support for the 34 months provided in the agreement. However,
financial inability or a party’s capacity to perform does not ordinarily support an impossibility
defense. See Restatement Contracts, 2d, § 261. Moreover, in this case, although Thomas argues
that he cannot be expected to work forever, the fact remains that he is still currently working.
There is, in other words, currently no supervening event whatsoever and no basis to conclude that
his performance is impossible. See Roberts, 275 Mich App at 73-74. Even if Thomas does retire
in the future, again, a more burdensome obligation or a financial difficulty does not typically
constitute impossibility that excuses performance of a contract. See Restatement Contracts, 2d,
§ 261; Chase, 241 Mich at 484. Finally, it should be noted that the settlement does not state that
spousal support is nonmodifiable. Generally, a spousal support obligation is modifiable under
MCL 552.28. However, divorcing parties may enter into a settlement agreement to “forgo their
statutory right to petition for modification of an agreed-upon alimony provision, and to clearly
express their intent that the alimony provision is final, binding, and thus nonmodifiable.” Staple
v Staple, 241 Mich App 562, 568; 616 NW2d 219 (2000). The parties in this case did not include
such a provision, meaning that the spousal support remains modifiable under MCL 552.28. In
these circumstances, it is baseless to argue that Thomas’s age or the possibility of Thomas’s future
retirement renders it impossible for him to comply with the agreement. The trial court erred by
finding impossibility.
H. DURESS
“Duress exists when one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or
perform some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will.” Apter v
Joffo, 32 Mich App 411, 416; 189 NW2d 7 (1971) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “To
successfully demonstrate duress, a party must show that they were illegally compelled or coerced
to act by fear of serious injury to their persons, reputations, or fortunes.” Skaates v Kayser, 333
Mich App 61, 78; 959 NW2d 33 (2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “The law does
not recognize duress by mere suggestion, advice, or persuasion, especially where the parties are at
arm’s length and represent opposing interests.” Clement v Buckley Mercantile Co, 172 Mich 243,
253; 137 NW 657 (1912). When claiming duress on the basis of threats or intimidation, “it must
appear that the party coerced was so intimidated and moved by the threats made as to cease to be
a free moral agent, and became so bereft of those qualities of the mind essential to entering into a
contract as to be incapacitated to exercise his free will power in that connection.” Id.