In re J.W.
2017 Ohio 8486
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Father filed for custody of two minor children in April 2016, claiming he paid expenses and was concerned about Mother's care.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed; parties negotiated a parenting-time/parenting-schedule settlement.
- On December 13, 2016, Father and Mother (both unrepresented) signed a parenting agreement; the magistrate reviewed its terms on the record and both repeatedly confirmed they understood and sought court adoption.
- The magistrate recommended adoption; the magistrate’s decision designated Mother residential parent and legal custodian and incorporated the signed parenting-time agreement.
- Father filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and entered judgment.
- Father appealed, arguing he made a unilateral mistake — he thought he agreed to shared parenting — and thus the agreement should be rescinded.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father can rescind the parenting agreement based on unilateral mistake | Father says he mistakenly believed the agreement created shared parenting and lacked a factual understanding, warranting rescission | Agreement was knowingly entered; magistrate reviewed terms and Father confirmed understanding; no evidence Mother knew of or caused any mistake | Denied. Court enforces the settlement; Father failed to prove unilateral mistake by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the trial court adequately ensured Father understood the agreement | Father contends the court failed to determine with certainty his understanding | Record shows magistrate explained terms point-by-point and obtained affirmative responses from Father | Court finds magistrate adequately ensured comprehension |
| Whether lack of counsel undermines enforceability | Father implies absence of counsel contributed to his mistake | Presence or absence of counsel does not negate a knowingly entered agreement where the record shows understanding | Lack of counsel does not invalidate the agreement here |
| Whether enforcing the agreement would be unconscionable due to mistake | Father argues enforcement is unconscionable if his mistake is factual | No showing Mother knew of or caused a mistake; no fraud, duress, or overreaching alleged | Enforcement is not unconscionable; agreement is binding |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tire, Inc. v. Mehlfeldt, 118 Ohio App.3d 109 (9th Dist.) (defines unilateral mistake as one party understanding the true effect while the other does not)
- Gartrell v. Gartrell, 181 Ohio App.3d 311 (5th Dist.) (party asserting unilateral mistake must prove it by clear and convincing evidence)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (trial court custody decisions entitled to great deference)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (parental allocation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)