Deitz v. Deitz, 2012 Ohio 130

Paul and Julie Deitz, married in 2003, have one child.
Paul filed for divorce Jan. 13, 2010; Julie sought residential custody.
Dec. 10, 2010 hearing: parties stated on the record they had a complete agreement; magistrate instructed drafting a joint entry; no motion or hearing followed.
Jan. 24, 2011 magistrate decision noted they reneged on submitting an agreed entry and recommended terms including counseling and parenting-time provisions.
Feb. 4, 2011 Paul filed objections; trial court overruled Feb. 28, 2011; decree of divorce filed March 21, 2011; Paul appeals.
Paul argues the court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the existence/terms of the settlement; appellee contends the on-record agreement mirrored the magistrate’s recommendations and any disputed terms were clarified by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the settlement.	Paul argues existence and terms disputed; seeks hearing per Rulli v. Fan Co.	Julie contends on-record agreement existed; counselor recommendations not mandatory; no mutual mistake.	No error; on-record terms reflected agreement; evidence outside record not considered; affirmed.

Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1997) (establishes when evidentiary hearings are required to confirm settlements in court proceedings)
Shock v. Motorist Ins. Co., 2004-Ohio-6049 (3d Dist. 2004) (extrinsic evidence not in record cannot be considered on appeal)
Grove v. Grove, 2001-Ohio-2109 (3d Dist. 2001) (appellate record completeness; attachment of non-record documents improper)