Mack v. Polson Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-283,84-283
• Citation: 14 OBR 335,14 Ohio St.3d 34,470 N.E.2d 902
• Parties: , 14 O.B.R. 335 MACK, Appellant, v. POLSON RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 34

14 Ohio St.3d 34

470 N.E.2d 902, 14 O.B.R. 335

MACK, Appellant, v. POLSON RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 84-283.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 21, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

In the absence of allegations of fraud, duress, undue influence, or of any factual dispute concerning the existence of the terms of a settlement agreement, a court is not bound to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to signing a journal entry reflecting the settlement agreement.

In 1979 appellant, Robert E. Mack, instituted this action against appellee, Polson Rubber Company, in the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County alleging that appellee violated the terms of a pension plan by denying appellant disability compensation under the plan. At a pretrial conference held on September 11, 1981, the trial judge was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in the case. The trial judge accordingly caused the case to be removed from the trial docket.

The settlement reached by the parties called for appellee to pay appellant a lump sum of $11,250 and commence monthly payments of $120.04 for the remainder of appellant's life. In return, appellant was to execute a Release and Stipulation of Dismissal of the action. Copies of the Release and Stipulation of Dismissal were forwarded by appellee's counsel to counsel for appellant. In November 1981 a check in the amount of $11,250 was mailed to appellant's counsel. Appellee began making the agreed upon monthly payments the following month.

After failing to receive the executed Release and Stipulation of Dismissal by February 1982, appellee's counsel contacted counsel for appellant. Appellee's counsel was informed that the check and settlement documents had been lost.

Appellee thereafter filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Attorneys' Fees. By this motion, appellee requested that the court issue a final judgment in accordance with the settlement reached by the parties. Appellant never opposed this motion. An oral hearing was conducted on this motion. It is undisputed that at this hearing, appellant's counsel admitted that a settlement agreement had been reached, the terms of the agreement were the same as those identified by appellee, and the only reason for appellant's non-compliance with the settlement agreement was that appellant had subsequently become dissatisfied with the agreement.

In June 1982 the trial court issued a judgment entry that decreed the settlement agreement entered into by the parties was valid and existing and ordered appellee to reissue a draft in the amount of $11,250 and continue to make the required monthly payments. Appellant was ordered to execute the Release and Stipulation of Dismissal. Appellant took no action on this entry. Thereafter, in April 1983, the trial court issued another judgment entry. This entry reiterated that the settlement agreement was valid and binding upon the parties, went on to completely set forth the terms and conditions of the settlement, released appellee from further actions, claims, or demands by appellant, and rendered final judgment in favor of appellant pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Appellant appealed to the court of appeals and, in a single assignment of error, argued that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on appellee's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. In a split decision, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

McLaughlin, McNally & Carlin Co., L.P.A., and Clair M. Carlin, Youngstown, for appellant.

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs Co., L.P.A., John L. Reyes and Bruce C. Scalambrino, Akron, for appellee.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, Chief Justice.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether an evidentiary hearing is required prior to issuing a judgment entry enforcing a settlement agreement between parties in the absence of a factual dispute as to the existence or the terms of the settlement agreement. Appellant argues that before the trial court may order enforcement of a settlement agreement reached by the parties, the court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to factually determine whether a settlement agreement had been reached and, if so, what the terms of that agreement were. Appellant maintains that in the absence of such factual findings, it was improper for the trial court to enforce the settlement...