In re J.E.
2017 Ohio 536
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties (mother and father) negotiated a written shared-parenting settlement during a magistrate hearing; the document contained typed terms and handwritten interlineations, each page was initialed by both parties and the agreement was signed.
- The magistrate adopted the agreement into her decision; the trial court journalized the magistrate’s decision and incorporated the signed agreement into the judgment entry.
- Mother fired her original counsel, retained new counsel, and filed objections and an appeal contending she did not understand she was bound because of poor legal advice from her former attorney.
- The trial court treated Mother’s objections as a motion (implicitly) to rescind the settlement and overruled them, finding no allegations of fraud, duress, or undue influence and noting the written, signed agreement.
- Mother alleged, by affidavit, that a handwritten interlineation extending Father’s post-May schedule through the school year had been added after she initialed and signed the pages; the court found no such alteration in the record.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding a party cannot unilaterally rescind a written settlement entered in court based solely on bad legal advice and absent fraud, duress, or undue influence.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement agreement is binding despite Mother’s claim she did not understand she was signing | Mother: Her counsel gave poor advice; she thought the document was nonfinal and would be read after initialing; thus no meeting of the minds | Father: The written, signed, initialed agreement adopted by the magistrate is a binding contract; Mother cannot unilaterally rescind | Court: Agreement is binding; bad legal advice or buyer’s remorse does not void the agreement absent fraud/duress/undue influence |
| Whether Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision were the proper vehicle to rescind the settlement | Mother: Filed objections to the magistrate’s decision asserting lack of adequate counsel-led understanding | Father: Rescission requires a motion to set aside the settlement; objections to factual/legal findings are not the correct procedure | Court: Proper remedy is a motion to set aside; courts may journalize an in-court settlement incorporated into the record without further factual hearing |
| Whether an alleged handwritten post-signing interlineation modified the settlement | Mother: Affidavit claims a handwritten amendment extending Father’s time through the school year was added after she initialed and signed | Father: The record contains no handwritten amendment matching Mother’s allegation; contested interlineations were present when signed | Court: No record support for alteration; claim unsupported and essentially frivolous |
| Whether the court should have held an evidentiary hearing on attorney advice | Mother: Seeks evidentiary hearing to resolve factual dispute about counsel’s advice | Father: The substance of counsel’s advice is not grounds to rescind a valid written settlement; no statutory or case law requiring hearing here | Court: No hearing required; bad legal advice alone does not permit rescission and mother cited no fraud/duress/undue influence |
Key Cases Cited
- Spercel v. Sterling Indus., 31 Ohio St.2d 36 (Ohio 1972) (requires more than objection to rescind an in-court settlement; party must move to set the agreement aside)
- Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1984) (settlement agreements are binding contracts that cannot be unilaterally rescinded)
- Walther v. Walther, 102 Ohio App.3d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (change of heart or bad legal advice is not a basis to set aside a settlement)
- Zigmont v. Toto, 47 Ohio App.3d 181 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (court may adopt terms of an agreement read into the record and incorporate a signed agreement into judgment)