Case Name: COMMODITIES EXPORT CO v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1981-01-23
Citations: 103 Mich. App. 205
Docket Number: Docket No. 45361
Parties: COMMODITIES EXPORT CO v CITY OF DETROIT
Judges: Before: Bashara, P.J., and Bronson and T. C. Quinn, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 103
Pages: 205–208

Head Matter:
COMMODITIES EXPORT CO v CITY OF DETROIT
Docket No. 45361.
Submitted June 6, 1980, at Detroit. —
Decided January 23, 1981.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Commodities Export Co. appealed a decision by the Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals denying it a variance for the use of its property to Wayne Circuit Court. Ammex, Inc. was allowed to intervene as a defendant in the appeal. Thereafter, Commodities Export Co. and the City of Detroit consented to a judgment which was entered, Myron H. Wahls, J., over the objection of Ammex. Ammex appeals. Held:
A valid consent judgment required the consent of all parties, and the entry of such a judgment without Ammex’s consent is a nullity.
Reversed and remanded.
Bronson, J., dissented. He would hold that Ammex was not an aggrieved party as required by statute and, thus, has no standing to appeal. He would affirm.
Opinion of the Court
1. Judgments — Consent Judgments — Intervening Parties.
A valid consent judgment requires the consent of all parties to an action, and where a defendant has intervened by right and not only does not consent to, but vigorously opposes the entry of a consent judgment, such judgment entered without his consent is a nullity.
Dissent by Bronson, J.
2. Zoning — Zoning Boards of Appeal — Intervening Property Owners — Notice — Appeal — Statutes.
Owners of real property located within 300 feet of property which is the subject of proceedings before a zoning board of appeals have the right to receive notice of and to intervene in such proceedings, but only those parties who are aggrieved by ac tions of the board are entitled to institute appellate review (MCL 125.586, 125.591; MSA 5.2935, 5.2941).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 47 Am Jur 2d, Judgments § 1083.
82 Am Jur 2d, Zoning and Planning § 344.
3. Zoning — Variances — Standing to Appeal — Damages.
A person does not have standing to appeal the grant of a zoning variance as an aggrieved person merely because the variance will increase competition in his business; such standing should be determined by inquiry into the suffering of special damages usually applicable to third-party appellants.
Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson, for plaintiff.
Fischer, Franklin, Ford, Simon & Hogg (by Gerald C. Simon and John H. Otto), for Ammex, Inc.
Before: Bashara, P.J., and Bronson and T. C. Quinn, JJ.
Former Court of Appeals Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals denied plaintiff a use variance for property at 1060 23rd Street. Plaintiff appealed to the circuit court by way of a complaint against the city, without naming any area landowners. Ammex, Inc., an area landowner, within 300 feet of plaintiff's property, sought intervention and was allowed to intervene by an order dated December 8, 1978. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the city agreed to a consent judgment which was entered on May 18, 1979. Ammex appeals.
The intervention of Ammex in the plaintiff's circuit court action was by right, D'Agostini v City of Roseville, 396 Mich 185; 240 NW2d 252 (1976), as the circuit judge recognized by his order of December 8, 1978. Thereafter, a valid consent judgment required the consent of all parties. In this case, Ammex not only did not consent, it vigorously opposed the entry of the consent judgment. We find that the consent judgment entered without Ammex's consent is a nullity.
The obligation of the circuit judge on an appeal from a Zoning Board of Appeals is clearly spelled out in the recent case of Ed Zaagman, Inc v City of Kentwood, 406 Mich 137; 277 NW2d 475 (1979). That obligation was not met in this case.
Reversed and remanded.