Settlement agreement; LLC ownership dispute; Motion to reopen; Enforcement of settlement agreement; Breach; Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c); Fraud; Reasonable time; Damages; Gross revenue; Civil contempt; MCL 600.1701(g); MCR 2.621(F); Attorney fees

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ motion to partially vacate or modify post-settlement enforcement orders and by entering judgment for plaintiff. The parties settled plaintiff’s business-ownership dispute involving defendant-MDM and two billboards, but defendants failed to resolve outstanding rent owed to nonparty-Cedan Holdings, preventing plaintiff from closing on financing to pay off certain loans and take over MDM. After the trial court found defendants breached the settlement agreement and entered multiple enforcement orders, defendants moved for relief, alleging plaintiff had fraudulently represented that he was ready and able to close. On appeal, the court held that the alleged financing issue was “not a new revelation to defendants” because defense counsel had raised the same concern before the original enforcement order, and defendants failed to timely seek reconsideration. The court also rejected defendants’ damages argument because the advertising “revenue was not awarded as a civil contempt sanction,” but as relief under the settlement agreement after breach, and the later contempt sanctions were the $53,000 in interest and $14,872 in attorney fees. Finally, the court held that defendants’ challenges involving defendants-GLM and Thompson were untimely because, under MCR 2.612(C)(2), their “motion for relief was not made within a reasonable time.” Affirmed.