Settlement agreement; Enforcement; MCR 2.507(G); Dabish v Gayar; Change of heart; Vittiglio v Vittiglio; Mootness; Garrett v Washington; Aggrieved party; 1373 Moulin, LLC v Wolf

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing plaintiff-Jones’s settlement agreement with defendants because the material terms were placed on the record in open court and the agreement was binding under MCR 2.507(G). Jones was a top-floor cooperative resident who, along with the other plaintiffs, withheld monthly carrying charges after water leaks damaged their units. The parties later reached a settlement involving dismissal of circuit and district court cases, renovation payments, sale coordination, waiver of past-due carrying charges, and cooperative-board approval. On appeal, the court first held that the settlement was enforceable because, at the settlement hearing, the trial court “reviewed each material provision of the parties’ agreement in open court,” asked Jones whether he agreed to each provision, and he “affirmed his agreement.” Although defendants later tried to add dismissal of his separate civil-rights case as a condition, they ultimately removed that term, and the only stated contingency, board approval, was satisfied. The court rejected his argument that he could withdraw his consent because the agreement was “a binding settlement, not an offer that Jones could withdraw.” It reasoned that “‘settlement agreements should not normally be set aside,’” and under Vittiglio, “[a] change of heart” is not enough to disavow an otherwise valid settlement. The court also held that Jones’s remaining claims were moot because the settlement resolved the controversy, and any unresolved sanction-related issues were waived because he failed to raise them below. Affirmed.