Rieser v. Rieser
191 Ohio App. 3d 616
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Ruth Day died in 2001; in 2004 a declaratory-judgment action was filed concerning disposition of the Day trust assets.
- A 2005 general division settlement agreement was approved and the court retained jurisdiction over related matters.
- Assets of the trust were distributed to Ruth Day's three daughters under the settlement; Ruth Day's will, directing other assets to the trust, was not probated then.
- In 2007 Kathleen Perkins, one daughter, sought probate of Ruth Day's will and was appointed executor after objections were resolved.
- Carole Ann Disher moved to dismiss the probate action, arguing the 2005 settlement resolved all matters for the estate.
- In 2007 Kathleen Perkins filed a federal RICO and related claims on behalf of the estate against several parties; in 2008 Rieser and Disher moved to enforce the 2005 settlement to bar Perkins from proceeding in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the general division had jurisdiction to prohibit the executor in the federal action | Perkins | Disher/Rieser | No; the general division lacked authority to restrict an executor’s federal action |
| Whether res judicata barred the federal action due to the 2005 settlement | Perkins as executor | Disher/Rieser | Res judicata does not bar the federal action on these facts |
| Whether the probate court ruling could bind the executor to the settlement terms | Probate acceptance of settlement binding | Probate court ruling controls executor conduct | The probate court could not bind non-executor status aspects; the general division cannot enforce a settlement to direct executor conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (final judgments bar subsequent actions on related claims)
- Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299 (1943) (identity of parties not required; real party in interest suffices)
- Deaton v. Burney, 107 Ohio App.3d 407 (1995) (real party in interest analysis for res judicata)
- Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34 (1984) (court may enforce settlement agreements; subject-matter jurisdiction remains restricted)
- Spercel v. Sterling Industries, 31 Ohio St.2d 36 (1972) (enforcing settlement contracts as binding)
- Trautwein v. Sorgenfrei, 58 Ohio St.2d 493 (1979) (identity of parties in res judicata matters)
- Humphrys v. Putnam, 172 Ohio St. 456 (1961) (courts' jurisdiction limited to statutory/constitutional grants)
- State ex rel. Bechtel v. McCabe, 60 Ohio App. 233 (1938) (court cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement)