Forest Hills Cooperative v. City of Ann Arbor, 334315

Forest Hills Cooperative owned eight Ann Arbor parcels and disputed their taxable values for tax years 2000–2009 before the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
This Court previously remanded for further valuation determinations in Forest Hills Coop v City of Ann Arbor, 305 Mich App 572; 854 NW2d 172 (2014); after that remand the county adjusted taxable values and issued a refund check to Forest Hills, which Forest Hills cashed.
On remand the parties executed a stipulated consent judgment reducing total taxable value by $180,000, with a table listing the “original” taxable and assessed values (values in effect at the case’s start).
Forest Hills later moved to set aside the consent judgment, claiming a mutual mistake: the parties purportedly overlooked that the roll already reflected prior reductions (and thus the consent reduction resulted in double relief).
The Tax Tribunal denied the motion (finding no evidence the county had revised the original roll values as Forest Hills claimed and noting Forest Hills had received the earlier refund), and denied reconsideration; Forest Hills appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the consent judgment should be set aside for mutual mistake	Forest Hills: the stipulation used incorrect “original” values; parties mistakenly thought roll values matched those in the stipulation, so consent judgment is based on mutual mistake	City: Forest Hills knew of the earlier roll adjustments and cashed the refund; parties agreed to the $180,000 reduction and received its benefit	Denied — no mutual mistake shown; consent judgment enforced
Whether fraud or misrepresentation justifies relief from judgment	Forest Hills: implied claim that failure to use revised roll values was misleading	City: no fraud; parties negotiated and received what they agreed to	Denied — no fraud established
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine required use of the revised roll values in the consent judgment	Forest Hills: prior appellate opinion required use of revised values	City: doctrine irrelevant because consent judgment was a new agreement not decided in prior appeal; doctrine not raised below	Rejected — law of the case inapplicable
Whether the consent judgment language was ambiguous	Forest Hills: term “original” ambiguous, supporting reinterpretation	City: term unambiguous; agreement reflects parties’ meeting of the minds; extrinsic evidence unnecessary	Rejected — contract unambiguous; interpretation against Forest Hills’ post-hoc claim

Forest Hills Coop v City of Ann Arbor, 305 Mich App 572 (2014) (prior appellate remand for valuation determinations)
Trendell v Solomon, 178 Mich App 365 (1989) (consent judgments not set aside except for fraud or mutual mistake)
Groulx v Carlson, 176 Mich App 484 (1989) (meeting of the minds and enforcement of oral/written settlement; post-hoc misgivings insufficient)
Chapdelaine v Sochocki, 247 Mich App 167 (2001) (law of the case does not override parties’ stipulated agreements)
SSC Assoc Ltd Partnership v Gen Retirement Sys of City of Detroit, 192 Mich App 360 (1991) (contract interpretation: ambiguous terms subject to judicial interpretation)
L & S Bearing Co v Morton Bearing Co, 355 Mich 219 (1959) (unambiguous written contract controls; extrinsic evidence not considered)
Gaydos v White Motor Corp, 54 Mich App 143 (1974) (rejects one-sided, self-serving contract interpretations)
Woods Bros Const Co v Yankton County, 54 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1931) (consent judgments and settlements generally enforced absent fraud)