[Cite as Rojas v. Rojas, 2012-Ohio-2978.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
CARMEN ROJAS C.A. No. 11CA0084-M
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE PEDRO ROJAS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellee CASE No. 10 DR 0219
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 29, 2012
BELFANCE, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Carmen Rojas (“Wife”) appeals from the judgment entry of
the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons set
forth below, we reverse and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
{¶2} Defendant-Appellee Pedro Rojas (“Husband”) and Wife were married on
December 27, 1978. At the time of the proceedings, the parties had no minor children. On April
16, 2010, Wife filed a complaint for divorce. A hearing was scheduled for March 15, 2011. At
the hearing, the parties read into the record a settlement agreement, which Husband’s attorney
was to reduce to writing. Wife filed objections to the proposed judgment entry on April 14,
2011, and again on June 8, 2011. On June 1, 2011, Wife filed a motion to set aside the
settlement agreement. Husband filed a response to Wife’s objections and a proposed judgment
entry. A hearing on Wife’s motions was scheduled for July 6, 2011, although it appears that, 2
instead, on that date, counsel for the parties met in chambers with the trial court. Wife filed a
motion seeking leave to respond to Husband’s response on July 14, 2011. The trial court issued
a judgment entry of divorce on July 18, 2011, without specifically addressing Wife’s objections
and without ruling on Wife’s motions. Wife has appealed, raising three assignments of error for
our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO ASSIGNING [SIC] THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT ENTRY OF DIVORCE.
{¶3} Wife asserts in her first assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing to
hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion to set aside the settlement agreement. For the reasons
set forth below, we agree.
{¶4} “The result of a valid settlement agreement is a contract between parties,
requiring a meeting of the minds as well as an offer and an acceptance thereof.” Rulli v. Fan
Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 376 (1997). “Where the meaning of terms of a settlement agreement is
disputed, or where there is a dispute that contests the existence of a settlement agreement, a trial
court must conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to entering judgment.” Id. at syllabus. “In the
absence of such a factual dispute, a court is not required to conduct such an evidentiary hearing.”
Id. at 377. The Seventh District has noted that:
In order to legitimately dispute a settlement agreement, the movant must make an argument stating the basis for challenging the settlement agreement with sufficient specificity to put the opposing party on notice of the general evidentiary basis for such a claim. If the motion does not give some indication that the party will be able to produce some evidence which could legitimately challenge the purported settlement agreement, then a trial court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on that issue. 3
Maury v. Maury, 7th Dist. No. 06 CA 837, 2008-Ohio-3326, ¶ 51.
{¶5} In Wife’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement, Wife asserted that she
“was under the influence of a drug that affected her regular medications * * * [and] [a]s a direct
and proximate result, [Wife] was not able to fully comprehend the import of this settlement
suggested on the record.” In addition, Wife submitted an affidavit stating that the drug caused
her to not “comprehend what [she] agreed to until later.” We note that the “[e]ssential elements
of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained for
legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of
consideration.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1,
2002-Ohio-2985, ¶ 16. Thus, a person who challenges his or her contractual capacity is
challenging the existence of the contract. As Wife’s argument raises issues concerning her
contractual capacity and, thus, the existence of a settlement agreement in the first place, the trial
court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Rulli, 79 Ohio St.3d at syllabus; see Warren
v. Warren, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-837, 2011-Ohio-3083, ¶ 4, 15 (concluding appellant was entitled
to a continuance of the hearing so that she could present medical evidence to support her claim
that she was under the influence of medications that negatively impacted her ability to
understand the agreement). Moreover, Wife’s motion stated the basis of her argument with
sufficient specificity to put Husband on notice of the general evidentiary basis of her claim. See
Maury at ¶ 51.
{¶6} In the instant matter, the trial court scheduled a hearing for July 6, 2011, on
Wife’s motions. However, there is no evidence that an evidentiary hearing was held. Instead, it
appears from the judgment entry that the trial court held a meeting with the parties’ counsel in
chambers, at which time the trial court ordered Husband to respond to Wife’s objections and 4
indicated that it would “rule on the other issues raised by [Wife].” Later in the same entry, the
trial court dismissed all pending motions. We have no evidence that the parties agreed to waive
the evidentiary hearing that the trial court was required to hold pursuant to Rulli, nor is there any
reason to presume waiver from the record before us. In light of the foregoing, we sustain Wife’s
first assignment of error and remand the matter for a hearing on Wife’s motion to set aside the
settlement agreement.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO APPELLEE’S RESPONSE AND TO SEEK COUNSEL.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT DUE PROCESS BY FAILING TO HOLD A HEARING ON THE RECORD OR ALLOW HER TO PARTICIPATE IN STATUS CONFERENCES.
{¶7} Wife asserts in her second assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing
to allow Wife leave for time to respond to Husband’s response to her motion and time to seek
counsel, given that Wife’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record on July 13,
2011. Wife asserts in her third assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing to hold a
hearing or failing to allow her to participate in status conferences. This Court’s resolution of
Wife’s first assignment of error renders her remaining assignments of error moot, and, thus, we
decline to address them. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
III.
{¶8} In light of the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Medina County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and remand this matter for a hearing.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. 5
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Rojas v. Rojas, 2012-Ohio-2978.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
CARMEN ROJAS C.A. No. 11CA0084-M
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE PEDRO ROJAS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellee CASE No. 10 DR 0219
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 29, 2012
BELFANCE, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Carmen Rojas (“Wife”) appeals from the judgment entry of
the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons set
forth below, we reverse and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
{¶2} Defendant-Appellee Pedro Rojas (“Husband”) and Wife were married on
December 27, 1978. At the time of the proceedings, the parties had no minor children. On April
16, 2010, Wife filed a complaint for divorce. A hearing was scheduled for March 15, 2011. At
the hearing, the parties read into the record a settlement agreement, which Husband’s attorney
was to reduce to writing. Wife filed objections to the proposed judgment entry on April 14,
2011, and again on June 8, 2011. On June 1, 2011, Wife filed a motion to set aside the
settlement agreement. Husband filed a response to Wife’s objections and a proposed judgment
entry. A hearing on Wife’s motions was scheduled for July 6, 2011, although it appears that, 2
instead, on that date, counsel for the parties met in chambers with the trial court. Wife filed a
motion seeking leave to respond to Husband’s response on July 14, 2011. The trial court issued
a judgment entry of divorce on July 18, 2011, without specifically addressing Wife’s objections
and without ruling on Wife’s motions. Wife has appealed, raising three assignments of error for
our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO ASSIGNING [SIC] THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT ENTRY OF DIVORCE.
{¶3} Wife asserts in her first assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing to
hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion to set aside the settlement agreement. For the reasons
set forth below, we agree.
{¶4} “The result of a valid settlement agreement is a contract between parties,
requiring a meeting of the minds as well as an offer and an acceptance thereof.” Rulli v. Fan
Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 376 (1997). “Where the meaning of terms of a settlement agreement is
disputed, or where there is a dispute that contests the existence of a settlement agreement, a trial
court must conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to entering judgment.” Id. at syllabus. “In the
absence of such a factual dispute, a court is not required to conduct such an evidentiary hearing.”
Id. at 377. The Seventh District has noted that:
In order to legitimately dispute a settlement agreement, the movant must make an argument stating the basis for challenging the settlement agreement with sufficient specificity to put the opposing party on notice of the general evidentiary basis for such a claim. If the motion does not give some indication that the party will be able to produce some evidence which could legitimately challenge the purported settlement agreement, then a trial court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on that issue. 3
Maury v. Maury, 7th Dist. No. 06 CA 837, 2008-Ohio-3326, ¶ 51.
{¶5} In Wife’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement, Wife asserted that she
“was under the influence of a drug that affected her regular medications * * * [and] [a]s a direct
and proximate result, [Wife] was not able to fully comprehend the import of this settlement
suggested on the record.” In addition, Wife submitted an affidavit stating that the drug caused
her to not “comprehend what [she] agreed to until later.” We note that the “[e]ssential elements
of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained for
legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of
consideration.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1,
2002-Ohio-2985, ¶ 16. Thus, a person who challenges his or her contractual capacity is
challenging the existence of the contract. As Wife’s argument raises issues concerning her
contractual capacity and, thus, the existence of a settlement agreement in the first place, the trial
court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Rulli, 79 Ohio St.3d at syllabus; see Warren
v. Warren, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-837, 2011-Ohio-3083, ¶ 4, 15 (concluding appellant was entitled
to a continuance of the hearing so that she could present medical evidence to support her claim
that she was under the influence of medications that negatively impacted her ability to
understand the agreement). Moreover, Wife’s motion stated the basis of her argument with
sufficient specificity to put Husband on notice of the general evidentiary basis of her claim. See
Maury at ¶ 51.
{¶6} In the instant matter, the trial court scheduled a hearing for July 6, 2011, on
Wife’s motions. However, there is no evidence that an evidentiary hearing was held. Instead, it
appears from the judgment entry that the trial court held a meeting with the parties’ counsel in
chambers, at which time the trial court ordered Husband to respond to Wife’s objections and 4
indicated that it would “rule on the other issues raised by [Wife].” Later in the same entry, the
trial court dismissed all pending motions. We have no evidence that the parties agreed to waive
the evidentiary hearing that the trial court was required to hold pursuant to Rulli, nor is there any
reason to presume waiver from the record before us. In light of the foregoing, we sustain Wife’s
first assignment of error and remand the matter for a hearing on Wife’s motion to set aside the
settlement agreement.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO APPELLEE’S RESPONSE AND TO SEEK COUNSEL.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT DUE PROCESS BY FAILING TO HOLD A HEARING ON THE RECORD OR ALLOW HER TO PARTICIPATE IN STATUS CONFERENCES.
{¶7} Wife asserts in her second assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing
to allow Wife leave for time to respond to Husband’s response to her motion and time to seek
counsel, given that Wife’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record on July 13,
2011. Wife asserts in her third assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing to hold a
hearing or failing to allow her to participate in status conferences. This Court’s resolution of
Wife’s first assignment of error renders her remaining assignments of error moot, and, thus, we
decline to address them. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
III.
{¶8} In light of the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Medina County Court of
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and remand this matter for a hearing.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. 5
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, 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.
EVE V. BELFANCE FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J. CONCURS.
CARR, J. DISSENTING.
{¶9} I respectfully dissent. Wife appeared in open court with counsel and agreed to the
terms of the settlement which the parties read into the record. At no time during that hearing did
she mention that she was under the influence of any drugs. When she filed objections to the
proposed judgment entry a month later, she objected solely to the terms of the agreement, not to 6
the propriety of its execution. It was not until three weeks later that she alleged for the first time
that she had been under the influence of drugs at the time the parties read their settlement
agreement into the record. Wife did not identify the drug which inhibited her capacity to enter
into an agreement. Moreover, she did not raise the issue of her lack of capacity when she first
filed objections to the terms of the agreement. I would conclude that Wife failed to give some
indication to the trial court that she could produce some evidence to legitimately challenge the
propriety of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court did not
err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Maury v. Maury, 7th Dist. No. 06
CA 837, 2008-Ohio-3326, ¶ 51. I would affirm the judgment of the domestic relations court.
APPEARANCES:
MICHELLE L. SLIMAK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
JAMES B. PALMQUIST, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.