Stafford Law Co. v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 01 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 109377,109377 |
| Citation | 170 N.E.3d 1249 |
| Parties | STAFFORD LAW CO., L.P.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTATE OF Ruby J. COLEMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Stafford Law Co., L.P.A. and Joseph G. Stafford, Cleveland, for appellee.
Harvey B. Bruner Co., L.P.A. and Harvey B. Bruner, Cleveland, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant the Estate of Ruby J. Coleman ("the Estate") appeals from the trial court's decision granting plaintiff-appellee Stafford Law Co. L.P.A.’s ("Stafford") motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
{¶ 2} This case stems from a fee dispute for legal services rendered by Stafford. An overview of earlier and directly related proceedings is essential to understand the facts and circumstances of this case. Ruby J. Coleman ("the decedent") hired Stafford to represent her in various proceedings against her husband, Charles B. Coleman ("Coleman"). Specifically, Stafford represented the decedent in her divorce proceedings against Coleman initiated in 2015. Stafford also represented the decedent in a domestic violence case and a related civil case, both against Coleman. The domestic violence case was resolved with a consent agreement and a five-year domestic violence civil protection order against Coleman, issued on November 4, 2016.
{¶ 3} Less than three months later, the decedent passed away on January 14, 2017. At the time of her death, the divorce case and the related civil case were still pending. The decedent's divorce from Coleman was not finalized at the time of her death, and Coleman was appointed as the administrator of the Estate.
{¶ 4} Stafford claims that the decedent owed it $41,678.01 plus 18 percent interest, for legal services rendered pursuant to their agreement. On April 18, 2017, Stafford filed a written statement of claim in probate court. The claim identified Coleman as the Estate's personal representative, and the certificate of service reflects that a copy of the claim was sent to Coleman care of his attorney at the attorney's office. On November 29, 2017,1 the Estate rejected Stafford's claim, stating that the claim was rejected because it was not properly presented to Coleman and therefore was not presented as mandated by the requirements of R.C. 2117.06.
{¶ 5} On January 17, 2018, Stafford filed suit against the Estate in the General Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Case No. CV-18-891660. On June 15, 2018, while the case was pending in the general division, Stafford filed a motion for the Estate to pay the claim in the Probate Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. On July 5, 2018, the Estate filed a motion for summary judgment in the general division, arguing that R.C. 2117.06 provides that a claim upon an estate must be presented to the administrator or executor of the estate, and not to an agent of the administrator or executor. On July 19, 2018, Stafford filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, which stated that it was more appropriate for the probate court to decide the matter.
{¶ 6} On October 25, 2018, the parties appeared at a hearing in probate court. On October 29, 2018, the probate court magistrate issued a judgment entry stating that the motion was "settled and dismissed." No written settlement agreement is contained in the record for this appeal.
{¶ 7} On February 25, 2019, Stafford filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement in the probate court. On April 12, 2019, the Estate filed a "motion to strike, or in the alternative, leave to respond." The Estate asserted that in filing its motion to enforce the settlement agreement, Stafford "failed to even attempt proper service upon either attorney" of record. The same day, the Estate filed a brief in opposition to Stafford's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Estate argued that no settlement agreement was ever reached.
{¶ 8} A hearing on Stafford's motion to enforce the settlement agreement was held on May 8, 2019, in probate court. During the hearing, the court expressed concern that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain Stafford's June 15, 2018 motion for the Estate to pay the claim. The court discussed in detail having an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether a settlement agreement had been reached on a future date. Counsel for both parties discussed what witnesses would need to be called at such a hearing. Ultimately, the court informed counsel that it would make a determination as to whether it had jurisdiction to enter the October 29, 2018 judgment entry stating the claim was settled and dismissed. If the court determined that it had jurisdiction, an evidentiary hearing would take place. No such hearing was held, and the court never heard evidence as to either the settlement or the presentation of the claim.
{¶ 9} On May 28, 2019, the probate court issued a judgment entry vacating its October 29, 2018 judgment entry for lack of jurisdiction. Despite the court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over a rejected claim, the judgment entry went on to find that no written settlement agreement was submitted to the court and further that the terms of any settlement were not otherwise recorded or made a part of the record. Relevant to this appeal, the court inexplicably went on to state that it agreed with Stafford that the claim was properly presented to the Estate because it was presented to Coleman's counsel. Despite this, the court found that Stafford did not cite to any authority that would have allowed the probate court to proceed on a rejected claim. Therefore, the probate court determined that it was without jurisdiction to consider the claim. In light of this conclusion, the probate court vacated the October 29, 2018 judgment entry finding that Stafford's motion for the Estate to pay the claim was "settled and dismissed" because the court was without jurisdiction to enter an order resolving the claim. Finally, the court dismissed Stafford's motion for the Estate to pay the claim and motion to enforce settlement agreement.
{¶ 10} On June 5, 2019, Stafford filed a complaint in the General Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint alleged that the decedent breached her agreement with Stafford, and the Estate has continued to refuse to pay Stafford the amount owed. The complaint further alleged unjust enrichment. On June 14, 2019, the Estate filed an answer and a motion to transfer the case to the original judge in accordance with Loc.R. 15.0(I). The court granted this motion on June 20, 2019.
{¶ 11} On August 14, 2019, Stafford filed an amended complaint. On August 27, 2019, the Estate filed an answer to the amended complaint. On September 20, 2019, the Estate filed a motion for summary judgment. The Estate reiterated its earlier argument that R.C. 2117.06, and the corresponding case law requires a creditor with a claim against an estate to present the claim to the administrator or executor of the estate and not to an agent thereof. The Estate further argued that Stafford's failure to properly present the claim could not be cured because R.C. 2117.06 provides that all claims against an estate shall be presented within six months after the death of the decedent.
{¶ 12} On October 18, 2019, Stafford filed a motion for summary judgment and brief in opposition to the Estate's motion for summary judgment. Stafford argued that its claim satisfied the requirements of R.C. 2117.06, and further, the Estate had not challenged any substantive aspect of Stafford's breach-of-contract or unjust-enrichment claims. Stafford also argued that the presentment issue is barred by res judicata because the probate court found that the claim had been properly presented to the Estate.
{¶ 13} On November 11, 2019, the Estate filed a motion to strike, or in the alternative, reply in opposition to Stafford's motion for summary judgment. On November 12, 2019, Stafford filed a brief in opposition to the Estate's motion to strike. On November 14, 2019, the trial court denied the Estate's motion to strike but accepted the filing as a brief in opposition.
{¶ 14} On December 16, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. On December 17, 2019, the trial court granted Stafford's motion for summary judgment and denied the Estate's motion for summary judgment. On December 18, 2019, the trial court, relying on the probate court's May 28, 2019 judgment entry, issued a corresponding decision and order.
{¶ 15} This appeal follows. The Estate presents two assignments of error for our review.
{¶ 16} In its first assignment of error, the Estate argues that the trial court erred in failing to make an independent determination on the issue of whether the claim was properly presented to the Estate, instead relying upon the probate court's May 28, 2019 judgment entry vacating its earlier decision and finding that the probate court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter. In response, Stafford argues that the Estate's arguments regarding the presentation of the claim are barred by res judicata.
{¶ 17} On May 8, 2019, the probate court held a hearing on Stafford's motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Following that hearing, the probate court issued a judgment entry on May 28, 2019, in which it vacated a prior decision referring to the case as having been "settled and dismissed," finding that it lacked jurisdiction to enter such an order resolving the claim because the claim had been rejected by the Estate. It is well-settled that probate court is without jurisdiction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doczi v. Blake
...set forth in R.C. 2117.06, despite the fact that the attorney gave the claim to the executor. Stafford Law Co., L.P.A. v. Estate of Coleman , 2021-Ohio-1097, 170 N.E.3d 1249 (8th Dist.). In reaching its decision, the Stafford court rejected the claimant's argument that the case was distingu......