Schmitt v. Ward, 2018 Ohio 1043

Melissa Schmitt filed for divorce from Shaine Ward in 2007; a divorce decree issued in 2012.
The present appeal challenges two agreed trial-court entries dated June 7 and June 20, 2017, concerning summer parenting time and disposition (rental income and auction sale) of real property known as "Ranch Road."
Both entries were approved by counsel for Schmitt and Ward and directed rental income to Ward’s counsel (IOLTA) and required steps to list or transfer the Ranch Road property for sale.
Ward, proceeding pro se on appeal, raised four assignments of error about marital-date valuations, treatment of pre-marital/separate assets, unaddressed motions (recusal/child-support/modification) and lack of jurisdiction due to a pending appeal.
The trial court and this Court treated the June entries as agreed (consent) judgments; Ward raised no claim of fraud or incapacity to invalidate consent.
The Ninth District affirmed, holding that a party who participates in and approves a consent judgment generally waives appellate review of errors in that judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ward)	Defendant's Argument (Schmitt)	Held
1. Marital-date and valuation period omitted/changed	Trial court erred in using July 23, 2005–April 7, 2009 for "during the marriage" values after marriage date change	Entries were agreed by counsel; no basis to disturb agreed valuation terms	Overruled — Ward consented to the entry; cannot appeal agreed judgment absent fraud/incapacity
2. Separate assets/debts not credited (Ranch Road, 50 Scupper Rd.)	Court failed to account for Ward’s pre-marital/separate funds used to purchase property	Parties agreed to the entry allocating rental proceeds and sale process; Ward’s counsel approved	Overruled — consent to entry waives appellate challenge to those allocations
3. Failure to rule on motions (recusal, modify support) / due process	Failure to rule denied fair trial and due process; trial court abused discretion	These specific June 2017 entries were agreed-upon dispositions; not preserved for attack on appeal	Overruled — Ward cannot attack issues incorporated into agreed entries he approved
4. Lack of jurisdiction because another appeal was pending	Trial court lacked jurisdiction while C.A. 28219 was pending	Entries were agreed orders resolving current matters; Ward’s approval waived appellate challenge	Overruled — consent judgments stand; Ward’s participation bars appellate relief

Sanitary Commercial Serv., Inc. v. Shank, 57 Ohio St.3d 178 (1991) (party who participates in a consent judgment cannot later appeal errors in that judgment)
Wells v. Warrick Martin & Co., 1 Ohio St. 386 (1853) (consent judgments are binding and conclusive absent fraud)