Graham v. Boerger, 2015 Ohio 3261

Decedent Dorothy Boerger died in 2010; her will and a 1997 trust left residue to her seven children equally. Two sons had been co-executors and co-trustees; allegations arose about mismanagement and large outstanding promissory notes to the estate.
Litigation in Darke County Probate Court involved removal of the co-executors/co-trustees, accounting disputes, and claims among siblings about advancements and debts charged against shares.
After two days of trial the siblings negotiated and signed an Agreed Judgment Entry approved by the magistrate and judge resolving the amount and nature of debts/advancements and providing for distribution and termination of the estate and trust.
Paragraph 5 of the Agreed Judgment Entry contained a broad release: all parties "irrevocably release and discharge ... all claims relating to the distribution of assets of the Estate and Trust of Dorothy E. Boerger." The entry expressly preserved certain legal-fee claims but did not except caretaking claims.
Post-settlement, Graham sought payment of a caretaking claim against the estate. Defendants argued the Agreed Judgment Entry released all such claims. The magistrate and trial court rejected Graham’s motion, concluding the release barred her caretaking claim; Graham appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Agreed Judgment Entry precluded Graham’s caretaking claim against the estate/trust	Graham argued the caretaking claim was not waived by the settlement and should be paid	Defendants argued the settlement’s broad release extinguished all claims relating to distribution of estate/trust assets	Court held the release was unambiguous and barred Graham’s caretaking claim; judgment affirmed

Spercel v. Sterling Indus., 285 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio 1972) (a settlement agreement made in court is a binding contract)
Continental W. Condominium Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc., 660 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 1996) (standard for reviewing enforcement of settlement agreements)
First Capital Corp. v. G & J Indus., Inc., 721 N.E.2d 1084 (Ohio App. 1999) (contracting parties’ intent is presumed to reside in the contract language)
Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 374 N.E.2d 146 (Ohio 1978) (unambiguous contract terms must be applied as written)
Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 509 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio 1987) (principle that intent is found in contract language)
State ex rel. Wright v. Weyandt, 363 N.E.2d 1387 (Ohio 1977) (settlement agreements are favored and enforceable)