The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing.

In Cieslinski v Cieslinski, Unpub Per Curiam Opin of the Court of Appeals, (#319609, 11/13/2014) the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing after one party in essence alleged that the other party fraudulently obtained the consent judgment. 

A consent judgment is the product of an agreement between the parties.  Generally, a party may obtain relief from a settlement agreement for mutual mistake, fraud, unconscionable advantage, or ignorance of a material term of the settlement agreement. MCR 2.612(C)(1)(c) allows a party to move the trial court to invalidate a judgment of divorce that was obtained on the basis of fraud. A party alleges fraud when he or she alleges (1) that the charged party made a material misrepresentation; (2) that it was false; (3) that when he or she made it he or she knew it was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth as a positive assertion; (4) that he or she made it with the intention that is should be acted upon by the other party; (5) that the other party acted in reliance upon it; and (6) that the other party thereby suffered injury.

In Kiefer v Kiefer, 212 Mich App 176, 183 (1995) this Court held that the trial court abuses its discretion when a party alleges fraud in a consent judgment but the trial court fails to hold an evidentiary hearing. The existence of a consent judgment does not, in and of itself, preclude the existence of fraud.  An evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether sufficient evidence of fraud exists.