Brown v. Spitzer Chevrolet Co.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
EARL W. BROWN, et al., : Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
: John W. Wise, J.
Plaintiffs-Appellants : Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 2012 CA 00105 :
:
SPITZER CHEVROLET COMPANY : OPINION
Defendant-Appellee
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Stark County Court of Common Pleas Case No.
2006 CV 03850
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 29, 2012 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellees For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH R. SPOONSTER ANTHONY B. GIARDINI Fortney & Klingshirn Giardini, Cook & Nicol, LLC 4040 Embassy Parkway, Suite 280 520 Broadway, Third Floor Akron, Ohio 44333 Lorain, Ohio 44052
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Earl Brown, et al., appeal from the May 3, 2012, Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas overruling their Motion to Re-Open Case and Motion for Enforcement of Settlement and ordering defendant- appellee, Spitzer Chevrolet Company, to pay interest on $40,000.00 for the period from October 2011 until March 9, 2012.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On October 10, 2006, appellants Earl Brown, Mary Brown and Julius Brown, LLC, filed a complaint against appellee in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, asserting claims for breach of lease agreement, negligence and unjust enrichment. The matter proceeded to trial before a Magistrate. The Magistrate, in a June 15, 2007 Decision, recommended that appellants be granted judgment against appellee in amount of $503,852.21 plus interest. After objections were filed, the trial court, pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on January 14, 2008, overruled the objections and adopted the Magistrate’s Decision as a final judgment entry.
{¶3} Appellee then filed an appeal and appellants filed a cross-appeal.
Pursuant to an Opinion filed in Brown, et al v. Spitzer Chevrolet Co., 181 Ohio App.3d 642, 2009-Ohio-1196, 910 N.E.2d 490, this Court reversed in part and remanded the matter to the trial court to re-determine damages.
{¶4} On September 17, 2009, a mediation conference was held and the case was settled. The Mediation Report, which was filed on September 18, 2009, required appellee to pay appellants $120,000.00. Of this sum, $40,000.00 was payable within 30 days, $40,000.00 was payable one year thereafter, and the remaining $40,000.00 was
Stark County App. Case No. 2012 CA 00105 3
payable two years thereafter. The Mediation Report, which was signed by the parties and/or their insurance representative and their counsel, provided that the above amounts were without interest unless appellee defaulted, in which case appellants were “entitled to interest on unpaid balance at 8% per annum from 3/9/05.” An Agreed Judgment Entry was filed on February 10, 2010 entering judgment in favor of appellants and against appellee in the amount of $120,000.00. The Agreed Entry incorporated the Mediation Report by reference.
{¶5} Thereafter, on April 6, 2012, appellants filed a Motion to Re-Open Case and Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement. Appellants, in their motion, alleged that appellee had failed to pay its final settlement installment on or before October 17, 2011, that appellants had notified appellee of its default on March 7, 2012 and demanded that appellee pay the settlement with 8% interest from March 9, 2005, and that appellee then issued the final settlement installment, but did not pay interest. Appellants asked the trial court to declare appellee in breach of the parties’ settlement agreement, to award them judgment for the unpaid interest at the rate of 8% per annum from March 9, 2005 ($22,400.00 plus $8.77 per day from March 9, 2012), and that the trial court award them reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of appellee’s breach.
{¶6} Appellee, in its brief in opposition to such motion, noted that it had paid the final $40,000.00 installment within two days after being notified that appellants had not received the same. Appellee alleged that its chief financial officer, who was responsible for making the payments, had left its employment before the final $40,000.00 was due and that his successor was unaware that the same was due near the end of October of
Stark County App. Case No. 2012 CA 00105 4
2011. Appellee also maintained that it had offered to pay interest on the $40,000.00 from October of 2011 until March 9, 2012, and that appellant had rejected such offer. Appellee further argued that the parties’ agreement did not define a “default,” that there was no date for the final payment set forth in the agreement and that appellants wanted to penalize appellee.
{¶7} The trial court, as memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on May 3, 2012, denied appellants’ Motion to Re-Open Case and Motion for Enforcement of Settlement, but ordered appellee to pay interest to appellants on the $40,000.00 for the period from October of 2011 until March 9, 2012.
{¶8} Appellants now raise the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
{¶10} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES FOR SPITZER’S BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.”
I
{¶11} Appellants, in their first assignment of error, argue that the trial court erred when it failed to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. We agree.
{¶12} Because a ruling on a motion to enforce settlement is an issue of contract law, Ohio appellate courts “must determine whether the trial court's order is based on an erroneous standard or a misconstruction of the law. The standard of review is whether or not the trial court erred.” Continental W. Condo. Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 501, 502, 1996-Ohio-158, 660 N.E.2d 431.
Stark County App. Case No. 2012 CA 00105 5
{¶13} Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and, as such, basic principles of contract law apply. Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 1997-Ohio-380, 683 N.E.2d 337. “‘[A] valid settlement agreement is a contract between parties, requiring a meeting of the minds as well as an offer and an acceptance thereof.’” Id. at 376, quoting Noroski v. Fallet, 2 Ohio St.3d 77, 79, 442 N.E.2d 1302 (1982). Additionally, the terms of the settlement agreement must be reasonably certain and clear. Id.
{¶14} When the parties to a lawsuit have entered into a binding settlement agreement, the trial court has the authority to enforce that settlement. Tabbaa v. Koglman, 149 Ohio App.3d 373, 377, 2002-Ohio-5328, 777 N.E.2d 338, citing Mack v. Polson, 14 Ohio St.3d 34, 470 N.E.2d 902 (1984).
{¶15} As an initial matter, we note that appellee argues that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing on appellants’ motion. In the case sub judice, the terms of the settlement agreement are not in dispute. Therefore, no hearing was required on its motion before the trial court. Rulli at syllabus. Moreover, appellee did not request that a hearing be held.
{¶16} In the case sub judice, the parties’ agreement clearly and unambiguously provided that the first $40,000.00 installment was due within 30 days of the September 17, 2009, mediation conference, that the second was due one year later, and that the third and final $40,000.00 installment was due two years later. The agreement further provided that the above amounts were without interest unless appellee defaulted, in which case appellants were “entitled to interest on unpaid balance at 8% per annum from 3/9/05.”
Stark County App. Case No. 2012 CA 00105 6
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2012 Ohio 5623 (Brown v. Spitzer Chevrolet Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.