Niederst v. Niederst
2024 Ohio 5297
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Brenda (Sister) and Mark (Brother) Niederst jointly owned two apartment buildings, leading to a dispute and litigation.
- The parties mediated and entered a handwritten settlement to divide the properties, later formalizing it in a definitive settlement agreement in January 2017, which included a mutual release of claims.
- Subsequent to the agreement, Sister allegedly breached the settlement, resulting in damages and attorney fees awarded to Brother. This was affirmed on appeal, and Sister satisfied the judgment.
- Sister filed new suits in 2020 and again in 2022, raising contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion claims, arguing ongoing fraudulent conduct by Brother predating the settlement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Brother on all of Sister’s claims, denied most of Brother’s counterclaims at trial, and awarded substantial attorney fees and damages to Brother. Both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Sister on her claims | Her claims were not barred by res judicata due to alleged fraud; genuine issues remained for trial | Claims barred by res judicata and mutual release; no triable issues raised; proper procedure not followed | Court affirmed summary judgment for Defendant; claims barred and no error shown |
| Whether dismissal of certain counterclaims (malicious prosecution, conversion/tax filings) was error | Not addressed; Sister not counterclaimant | Sufficient evidence for jury, error to dismiss | Dismissal affirmed; record incomplete, regularity presumed |
| Whether denial of injunctive relief to Brother was error | N/A | Settlement allowed injunction for breach; Sister waived First Amendment rights | Denial affirmed; Brother failed to address magistrate findings or propose language |
| Whether trial court erred in not awarding all requested attorney fees and costs | N/A | Settlement entitled them to full fees/costs; trial court ignored evidence | Ruling affirmed; insufficient record to challenge calculations |
Key Cases Cited
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (satisfaction of judgment generally moots appeal, unless payment is not voluntary)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (res judicata precludes claims that could have been raised previously)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard explained)