Murman v. Univ. Hosps. Health Sys., Inc.
2017 Ohio 1282
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Leah Apel, a minor, sued University Hospitals (UH) for medical malpractice; Maria Tejedor (Diez-Arguelles & Tejedor, P.A.) appeared pro hac vice with local counsel; Michael Murman was court-appointed guardian and later appeared as additional/local counsel.
- Parties reached a partial settlement on the eve of trial; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement but the settlement was not immediately reduced to payment pending probate approval.
- A fee dispute arose between Tejedor and Murman (contingency vs. hourly). Three days after the court reduced the settlement to judgment, Tejedor filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the settlement alleging UH violated an unwritten cooperation term.
- UH opposed the motion, warned Tejedor it was meritless and asked her to withdraw it; Tejedor initially agreed to withdraw only if UH released funds immediately. UH stated it could not pay without probate approval and threatened sanctions.
- Tejedor then pursued a Florida emergency temporary guardian to try to obtain funds, filed conflicting pleadings (setting aside settlement in Ohio while seeking enforcement in Florida), later withdrew the vacatur motion and filed to enforce the settlement without mentioning the prior vacatur claim.
- The trial court found Tejedor acted in bad faith (Civ.R. 11) and engaged in frivolous conduct (R.C. 2323.51) to coerce payment and bypass the probate process, awarded UH $20,770 in fees, and reserved other amounts. The court of appeals affirmed; UH’s motion for appellate sanctions was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing the motion to set aside settlement violated Civ.R. 11 (bad faith) | Tejedor: she reasonably believed UH breached an unwritten cooperation term, so motion had merit | UH: motion was filed in bad faith to force release of settlement funds and bypass probate approval | Court: affirmed sanctions under Civ.R. 11 — subjective bad-faith standard satisfied |
| Whether conduct was frivolous under R.C. 2323.51 (objective standard) | Tejedor: acted with reasonable belief, not frivolous | UH: conduct objectively served to harass/coerce and increase litigation costs | Court: affirmed sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 — objective standard met |
| Whether Tejedor’s Florida filings and timing supported sanction finding | Tejedor: Florida petition was proper emergency step | UH: Florida petition contradicted Ohio vacatur and showed coercive intent | Court: found contemporaneous conflicting filings supported bad-faith/coercion finding |
| Whether appeal was frivolous under App.R. 23 | Tejedor: appealed the sanction ruling | UH: requested appellate fees for a frivolous appeal | Court: appeal not frivolous — abuse-of-discretion claims present reasonable question for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Infinite Sec. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties II, 143 Ohio St.3d 346 (settlement agreements are binding contracts)
- Shifrin v. Forest City Ent., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (contract interpretation presumes intent in the language employed)
- State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 127 Ohio St.3d 202 (Civ.R. 11 bad-faith standard explained)
- State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 144 Ohio St.3d 571 (R.C. 2323.51 frivolous-conduct judged objectively)
- State ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214 (standard of review and frivolous-conduct discussion)
- State ex rel. Grein v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 116 Ohio St.3d 344 (appellate standard for abuse of discretion)
- Talbott v. Fountas, 16 Ohio App.3d 226 (definition of frivolous appeal under App.R. 23)