As can be seen from the parties` previous litigation, the management, ownership and control of Cedar Rest Resort has been a focus from the outset. The question of whether it should be sold has been controversial since 2008. In entering into the transaction agreement, the parties clearly entered into a settlement agreement for all pending disputes. As such, MCL 700.7111 (2) was not applicable to this case and the court erred in authorizing the sale of Cedar Rest Resort in violation of the parties` transaction agreement. The overall agreement was an expression of the parties` desire to end disputes under conditions with which each could live and to create a contractual agreement between them. MCR 2.507 (G) provides that “consent or agreement between the parties or their lawyers who respect the procedure in an appeal is not binding, unless it has been concluded in open court or the proof of the agreement has been provided in writing, either by the party against which the agreement is proposed, or by counsel for that party.” “An agreement to settle an pending action is a contract and is governed by the legal principles applicable to the constitution and interpretation of contracts.” Walbridge Aldinger Co v. Walcon Corp, 207 Mich.App 566, 571; 525 NW2d 489 (1994). The basis of contract law is that “the parties are free to enter into contracts as they see fit, and the courts are in order to force the agreement in the written absence of certain highly unusual circumstances, such as a contract in violation of law or public order.” Wilkie v. Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich. 41, 51; 664 NW2d 776 (2003). In fact, “the idea that free men and women can enter into agreements on their affairs without state interference and that the courts will enforce these agreements is old and irrefutable.” Id.
at 51-52. Thus, “[t]he party at trial, which argues  [error of fact] a provision freely received in open proceedings, carries a heavy burden of conviction. Any presumption of judicial care, professional competence and decree stability is opposed to the fall of such provisions and the resulting orders and decrees before the Court of Appeal. Wagner against. Myers, 355 Me. 62, 68; 93 NW2d 914 (1959). Courts are required to enforce transaction agreements without evidence, such as fraud or coercion. Massachusetts Indemnity – Life Ins Thomas, 206 Mich.App 265, 268; 520 NW2d 708 (1994). MR. HUDNUT: The transaction contract also deals with it. The case at the bar does not involve the routine management of a trust as envisaged by MCL 700.7111. Indeed, the parties were involved in lengthy litigation in which supplements were pending before the Macomb and Oakland Probate courts at the time of the conclusion of the transaction proceedings.
It is clear that the parties were considering that the transaction agreement would resolve all thrly issues. The transaction agreement states that “petitioners and respondents want to resolve the issues raised in the caption cases above as follows.” In addition, in the oral proceedings in which the settlement agreement was recorded in the minutes, can an out-of-court settlement agreement (NJSA) under MCL 700.7111 (3)c) be used to give the agent either (a) the general power to decant trust, or (b) the specific power to breach trust in an NTS? 4. The injunction in response to a petition in point 1 is mandatory for each party represented in the proceedings and for the others, in accordance with section 1403, point b).