Zigmont v. Toto

17 Citing cases

  1. Clark v. Clark

    2009 Ohio 2803 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Seng, 2008-Ohio-6758 at ¶ 9. See, also, Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 185. The trial court may then "enter a judgment which accurately reflects an agreement they made in open court and read into the record."

  2. Michelle v. Eduardo

    2006 Ohio 2119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    {¶ 11} Appellant argues that the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the disputed settlement terms as required by Rulli v. Fan Company (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 374. It is true, "[w]here 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." Rulli at 377; See also Watson v. Watson (May 14, 1999), 6th Dist. No. OT-98-029 citing Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 185. Citing State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, appellee asserts that appellant waived his right to appeal any claimed procedural error by failing to raise an objection with the trial court during the 24 days between the scheduled May 23, 2005 hearing date and the June 16, 2005 adoption of appellee's shared parenting plan by the trial court. Further, appellee asserts that since no transcript of any May 23, 2005 proceeding exists, appellant was required to provide a statement of the proceedings pursuant to App.R. 9(C) from which to review the trial court's conduct.

  3. Kelley v. Kelley

    76 Ohio App. 3d 505 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 14 times

    This court has held that if there is a dispute about the existence of an agreement or its terms, the trial court should hold a hearing to reliably determine the contents of the agreement. Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208. However, if the dispute is premised on the inability to review a proposed journal entry rather than the existence of an agreement, error does not occur unless the appellant demonstrates prejudice. Zucker v. Cook Coffee Co. (June 19, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50804, unreported, 1986 WL 6972.

  4. Kest v. Kest

    2018 Ohio 489 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    {¶19} "It is well-established that a trial court may enter a judgment that reflects an agreement that is read in open court into the record." Grubic, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73793, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4200, at 9, citing Zigmont v. Toto, 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 185, 547 N.E.2d 1208 (8th Dist.1988). When parties enter into a settlement agreement in the presence of the trial court, such an agreement constitutes a binding contract. Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 285 N.E.2d 324 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus.

  5. In re J.E.P.-T.

    2017 Ohio 536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    The trial court's decision conforms with the law and analysis provided in that case. It was held that "where the [settlement] agreement is read into the record in open court and agreed upon, the court may enter judgment adopting its terms." Id., citing Grubic, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73793, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4200, at 9; and Zigmont v. Toto, 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208 (8th Dist.1988). "'Absent fraud, duress, overreaching or undue influence, a settlement agreement between parties in a divorce is enforceable.'" Id. at ¶ 11, quoting Diguilio v. Diguilio, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81860, 2003-Ohio-2197, ¶ 33. If the record does not contain the terms of the in-court agreement or the judgment entry does not contain the signed agreement by incorporation, only then does the court need to consider the existence of a factual dispute over the oral agreement.

  6. Bottum v. Jankovic

    2013 Ohio 4914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    Grubic v. Grubic, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73793, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4200, *9 (Sept. 9, 1999), citing Zigmont v. Toto, 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208 (8th Dist.1988). See also Vasilakis v. Vasilakis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68763, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 2569 (June 20, 1996) (a trial court may adopt an agreed judgment entry); Hupp v. Hupp, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 08-CA-36, 2009-Ohio-1851, ¶ 10.

  7. HUPP v. HUPP

    2009 Ohio 1851 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    DiGuilio v. Diguilio, Cuyahoga App. No. 81860, 2003-Ohio-2197, citing, Walther v. Walther (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 378, 657 N.E.2d 332. "[A] settlement agreement may be either written or oral, and may be entered into prior to or at the time of the of a divorce hearing. Where the agreement is made outside the presence of the court, the court may properly sign a journal entry reflecting the settlement agreement in the absence of any factual dispute concerning the agreement." Haas v. Bauer (2004), 156 Ohio App.3d 26, 33, 804 N.E.2d 80, citing, Muckleroy v. Muckleroy (Sept. 5, 1990), Summit App. No. 1443; See also, Mack v. Poison Rubber Co. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 34, 470 N.E.2d 902; Grubic v. Grubic (September 9, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73793, citing, Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208. (a trial court may enter a judgment that reflects an agreement that is read into the record in open court); Vasilakis v. Vasilakis (June 20, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68763, (a trial court may adopt an agreed judgment entry). {¶ 11} Furthermore, "when the parties agree to a settlement offer, [the] agreement cannot be repudiated by either party, and the court has the authority to sign a journal entry reflecting the agreement and to enforce the settlement."

  8. Loeffler v. Loeffler

    2006 Ohio 3060 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Rather, she maintains that there was no need to construe the written contract, because the oral contract was already binding. In support of this point, appellant cites cases for the proposition that an oral settlement agreement constitutes a binding contract: Noroski v. Fallet (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 77, 2 OBR 632, 442 N.E.2d 1302; Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208. Neither of these cases is persuasive.

  9. Schrock v. Schrock

    2006 Ohio 748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    As such, it is clear that appellant in the case at bar incorrectly assumes that these additional provisions serve to invalidate the decree merely because they were not entered on the record. {¶ 38} Appellant cites Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 181; and Koontz v. Koontz (Sept. 27, 1985), Wood App. No. WD-85-18, 1985 WL 7611, for the proposition that these additional provisions make the decree inconsistent and therefore invalid. However, both of the cases cited by appellant may be distinguished from this case.

  10. Phillips v. Phillips

    2005 Ohio 231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    DiGuilio v. Diguilio, Cuyahoga App. No. 81860, 2003-Ohio-2197, citing, Walther v. Walther (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 378. "[A] settlement agreement may be either written or oral, and may be entered into prior to or at the time of the of a divorce hearing. Where the agreement is made outside the presence of the court, the court may properly sign a journal entry reflecting the settlement agreement in the absence of any factual dispute concerning the agreement." Haas v. Bauer (2004), 156 Ohio App.3d 26, 33, citing, Muckleroy v. Muckleroy (Sept. 5, 1990), Summit App. No. 1443; See also, Mack v. Polson Rubber Co. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 34; Grubic v. Grubic (September 9, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73793, citing, Zigmont v. Toto (1988), 47 Ohio App. 3d 181. (a trial court may enter a judgment that reflects an agreement that is read into the record in open court); Vasilakis v. Vasilakis (June 20, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68763, (a trial court may adopt an agreed judgment entry). {¶ 27} When the in-court record does not reflect an agreement and/or the proposed entry does not reflect an agreement, and there is a factual dispute present between the parties, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate the issues in dispute.