[Cite as Gilbert v. Mollis, 2024-Ohio-2246.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
KARYN L. GILBERT C.A. No. 30889
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE STEPHEN J. MOLLIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2022 CV 00042
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 12, 2024
STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Stephen J. Mollis appeals from the judgment of the Summit County
Probate Court dismissing the case and approving a settlement agreement with an amendment. For
the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
I.
{¶2} Siblings Mollis and Appellee Karyn L. Gilbert are co-trustees of their mother’s
trust, the Frances L. Mollis Revocable Trust (the “Trust”). There is no dispute that, pursuant to the
Trust, all Trust property is to be equally distributed between the siblings.
{¶3} Gilbert filed a complaint in the common pleas court, probate division, alleging that
Mollis failed to cooperate with the disposition of Trust property. Gilbert’s complaint asserted
claims for removal of trustee, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty. Mollis denied the
material allegations of the complaint. 2
{¶4} Gilbert and Mollis settled their dispute at mediation. A report of mediation
informed the court that the case was settled with a dismissal entry to follow.
{¶5} Almost thirteen months later, Mollis filed an unsigned motion asking the court to
re-open the case. The trial court struck Mollis’s unsigned motion and noted in its order that it “does
not have a copy of the settlement [agreement] and has not received a dismissal entry.” The court
“urge[d] the parties to resolve any remaining issues and file a dismissal when appropriate.”
{¶6} Gilbert subsequently filed an “update to the court’s * * * order,” notifying the court
that “only one remaining item outlined in the parties’ settlement agreement * * * has not been
completed.” According to Gilbert, the only remaining issue pertained to a federal IRS tax refund
that, once received, the siblings would split pursuant to the Trust. Gilbert asserted that Mollis, as
the designated person on IRS tax forms, needed to contact the IRS to inquire as to the status of
the refund. Gilbert represented that Mollis refused to contact the IRS and that, as such, she will
file paperwork with the IRS so that they will talk to her about the refund. Gilbert informed the trial
court that “[o]nce the federal tax refund is obtained, [she] will file a dismissal with prejudice in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.”
{¶7} Mollis argued in response that he made numerous calls to the IRS about the status
of the refund. An IRS supervisor allegedly informed Mollis that refund information would only be
provided to an executor/administrator or pursuant to court order. Because an estate had never been
opened, an executor/administrator had never been appointed for Mother.
{¶8} Mollis also argued that Gilbert improperly closed a Huntington checking account,
which was also Trust property. Mollis asserted that, per the settlement agreement, the Huntington
account was to remain open until the IRS tax refund was deposited. Gilbert was to close the
Huntington account and equally distribute the funds after the deposit of the IRS refund. Mollis 3
argued that Gilbert closed the Huntington account without the IRS tax refund and that she failed
to give him an equal portion of account funds. Mollis informed the court that the parties “are at an
impasse” and he requested “a show cause hearing be scheduled to resolve [the] case.”
{¶9} The trial court dismissed the case and approved the settlement agreement with an
“amendment.” The trial court ordered that Gilbert retain the amount in the Huntington checking
account and that she close said account. The court ordered Mollis to take necessary steps to access
the IRS tax refund and that he could then retain the proceeds for himself.
{¶10} Mollis appeals the trial court’s judgment entry, raising two assignments of error for
our review. We address the assignments of error out of order because the second assignment of
error is dispositive of this appeal.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MODIFYING THE TERMS OF A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE SAID TERMS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS AND CLEAR.
{¶11} Mollis argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in
modifying the terms of the settlement agreement where said terms were unambiguous and clear.
For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the trial court erred when it unilaterally amended the
parties’ settlement agreement.
{¶12} The parties do not dispute they entered into a settlement agreement. A trial court
may issue a journal entry approving a settlement agreement provided the journal entry “accurately
reflects the terms of the agreement * **.” (Emphasis in original.) Santomauro v. Sumss Property
Mgt., LLC, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 29032, 29217, 2019-Ohio-4335, ¶ 45. “A trial court may not
unilaterally modify the clear and unambiguous terms of a settlement contract entered into by the 4
parties.” Cuyahoga Falls v. Wells, 9th Dist. Summit No. 19959, 2001 WL 81260, *3 (Jan. 31,
2001). It is reversible error for a trial court to unilaterally amend a settlement agreement. Id. at
*3; see also Santomauro at ¶ 45.
{¶13} The parties in Wells entered into a settlement agreement wherein they agreed who
was responsible for paying liens and accruing interest with a specified interest accrual date. Wells
at *3. Despite the parties’ agreement, the trial court unilaterally extended the interest accrual date
and amended the party responsible for paying certain liens. Id. The city appealed and this Court
remanded the matter, concluding that the trial court improperly modified the parties’ settlement
agreement. Id. As previously noted, this Court concluded in Wells that it is reversible error for a
trial court to “unilaterally modify the clear and unambiguous terms of a settlement contract entered
into by the parties.” Id.
{¶14} Mollis and Gilbert agreed that they entered into a settlement agreement and that all
Trust property was to be equally split among the siblings. Mollis and Gilbert agreed that the
remaining Trust property included an outstanding IRS tax refund and Huntington checking
account.
{¶15} Neither Mollis nor Gilbert moved for a court order requesting any amendment to
their agreement. Rather, Gilbert informed the court that, “in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement[,]” she would file a dismissal once the IRS tax refund is received. Without a motion
from either party, the trial court approved the parties’ settlement agreement with a unilateral
“amendment.” The trial court amended the settlement agreement, ordering that Gilbert “retain for
herself the amount in the checking account and close it” and that Mollis “shall take all necessary
steps to access the tax return and retain for himself the proceeds.” While the trial court did not take
any evidence, it appears from the pleadings that the bank account and the tax refund were not 5
equal, and the court’s “amendment” modified the parties’ agreement of an equal distribution of
assets. Accordingly, this unilateral “amendment” is a clear modification of the parties’ agreement
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Gilbert v. Mollis, 2024-Ohio-2246.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
KARYN L. GILBERT C.A. No. 30889
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE STEPHEN J. MOLLIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2022 CV 00042
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 12, 2024
STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Stephen J. Mollis appeals from the judgment of the Summit County
Probate Court dismissing the case and approving a settlement agreement with an amendment. For
the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
I.
{¶2} Siblings Mollis and Appellee Karyn L. Gilbert are co-trustees of their mother’s
trust, the Frances L. Mollis Revocable Trust (the “Trust”). There is no dispute that, pursuant to the
Trust, all Trust property is to be equally distributed between the siblings.
{¶3} Gilbert filed a complaint in the common pleas court, probate division, alleging that
Mollis failed to cooperate with the disposition of Trust property. Gilbert’s complaint asserted
claims for removal of trustee, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty. Mollis denied the
material allegations of the complaint. 2
{¶4} Gilbert and Mollis settled their dispute at mediation. A report of mediation
informed the court that the case was settled with a dismissal entry to follow.
{¶5} Almost thirteen months later, Mollis filed an unsigned motion asking the court to
re-open the case. The trial court struck Mollis’s unsigned motion and noted in its order that it “does
not have a copy of the settlement [agreement] and has not received a dismissal entry.” The court
“urge[d] the parties to resolve any remaining issues and file a dismissal when appropriate.”
{¶6} Gilbert subsequently filed an “update to the court’s * * * order,” notifying the court
that “only one remaining item outlined in the parties’ settlement agreement * * * has not been
completed.” According to Gilbert, the only remaining issue pertained to a federal IRS tax refund
that, once received, the siblings would split pursuant to the Trust. Gilbert asserted that Mollis, as
the designated person on IRS tax forms, needed to contact the IRS to inquire as to the status of
the refund. Gilbert represented that Mollis refused to contact the IRS and that, as such, she will
file paperwork with the IRS so that they will talk to her about the refund. Gilbert informed the trial
court that “[o]nce the federal tax refund is obtained, [she] will file a dismissal with prejudice in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.”
{¶7} Mollis argued in response that he made numerous calls to the IRS about the status
of the refund. An IRS supervisor allegedly informed Mollis that refund information would only be
provided to an executor/administrator or pursuant to court order. Because an estate had never been
opened, an executor/administrator had never been appointed for Mother.
{¶8} Mollis also argued that Gilbert improperly closed a Huntington checking account,
which was also Trust property. Mollis asserted that, per the settlement agreement, the Huntington
account was to remain open until the IRS tax refund was deposited. Gilbert was to close the
Huntington account and equally distribute the funds after the deposit of the IRS refund. Mollis 3
argued that Gilbert closed the Huntington account without the IRS tax refund and that she failed
to give him an equal portion of account funds. Mollis informed the court that the parties “are at an
impasse” and he requested “a show cause hearing be scheduled to resolve [the] case.”
{¶9} The trial court dismissed the case and approved the settlement agreement with an
“amendment.” The trial court ordered that Gilbert retain the amount in the Huntington checking
account and that she close said account. The court ordered Mollis to take necessary steps to access
the IRS tax refund and that he could then retain the proceeds for himself.
{¶10} Mollis appeals the trial court’s judgment entry, raising two assignments of error for
our review. We address the assignments of error out of order because the second assignment of
error is dispositive of this appeal.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MODIFYING THE TERMS OF A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE SAID TERMS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS AND CLEAR.
{¶11} Mollis argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in
modifying the terms of the settlement agreement where said terms were unambiguous and clear.
For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the trial court erred when it unilaterally amended the
parties’ settlement agreement.
{¶12} The parties do not dispute they entered into a settlement agreement. A trial court
may issue a journal entry approving a settlement agreement provided the journal entry “accurately
reflects the terms of the agreement * **.” (Emphasis in original.) Santomauro v. Sumss Property
Mgt., LLC, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 29032, 29217, 2019-Ohio-4335, ¶ 45. “A trial court may not
unilaterally modify the clear and unambiguous terms of a settlement contract entered into by the 4
parties.” Cuyahoga Falls v. Wells, 9th Dist. Summit No. 19959, 2001 WL 81260, *3 (Jan. 31,
2001). It is reversible error for a trial court to unilaterally amend a settlement agreement. Id. at
*3; see also Santomauro at ¶ 45.
{¶13} The parties in Wells entered into a settlement agreement wherein they agreed who
was responsible for paying liens and accruing interest with a specified interest accrual date. Wells
at *3. Despite the parties’ agreement, the trial court unilaterally extended the interest accrual date
and amended the party responsible for paying certain liens. Id. The city appealed and this Court
remanded the matter, concluding that the trial court improperly modified the parties’ settlement
agreement. Id. As previously noted, this Court concluded in Wells that it is reversible error for a
trial court to “unilaterally modify the clear and unambiguous terms of a settlement contract entered
into by the parties.” Id.
{¶14} Mollis and Gilbert agreed that they entered into a settlement agreement and that all
Trust property was to be equally split among the siblings. Mollis and Gilbert agreed that the
remaining Trust property included an outstanding IRS tax refund and Huntington checking
account.
{¶15} Neither Mollis nor Gilbert moved for a court order requesting any amendment to
their agreement. Rather, Gilbert informed the court that, “in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement[,]” she would file a dismissal once the IRS tax refund is received. Without a motion
from either party, the trial court approved the parties’ settlement agreement with a unilateral
“amendment.” The trial court amended the settlement agreement, ordering that Gilbert “retain for
herself the amount in the checking account and close it” and that Mollis “shall take all necessary
steps to access the tax return and retain for himself the proceeds.” While the trial court did not take
any evidence, it appears from the pleadings that the bank account and the tax refund were not 5
equal, and the court’s “amendment” modified the parties’ agreement of an equal distribution of
assets. Accordingly, this unilateral “amendment” is a clear modification of the parties’ agreement
to divide the trust assets equally and is beyond the scope of the trial court’s authority under Wells.
{¶16} We conclude that the trial court erred in amending the parties’ settlement
agreement. Accordingly, Mollis’s second assignment of error is sustained.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ISSUING AN ORDER TO ENFORCE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
{¶17} Mollis argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred in ordering to
enforce a settlement agreement before holding an evidentiary hearing. We decline to address the
merits of this assignment of error as our disposition of the second assignment of error is dispositive
of this appeal.
III.
{¶18} Mollis’s second assignment of error is sustained. We decline to address the merits
of the first assignment of error as our disposition of the second assignment of error is dispositive
of this appeal rendering it moot. The judgment of the Summit County Probate Court is reversed
and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 6
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
STEPHEN J. MOLLIS, pro se, Appellant.
MARK J. SKAKUN and MATTHEW D. SMITH, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.