Smith v. Hilt, 2016 Ohio 7340

Isabelle A. Hilt created a revocable trust in 2002 naming herself and her son Thomas Hilt co‑trustees; Isabelle later became incompetent and a guardian was appointed.
Thomas was removed as trustee in 2012; Laura Smith (plaintiff) later sued Thomas and the guardian in 2015 asserting conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, Ohio Trust Code violations, an accounting, and seeking termination of the trust (Count 6).
Plaintiff and the guardian prepared a “Consent Judgment Entry” terminating the trust and presented it to the probate court; the entry was not served on appellant Thomas Hilt and lacked a proof of service as required by Civ.R. 5(B)(4).
The probate court signed the Consent Judgment Entry (with plaintiff, guardian, and the court), despite Thomas not having consented or been served; Thomas timely appealed.
The Sixth District found the entry should not have been considered or entered because it lacked proof of service and Thomas did not consent; the court reversed and remanded, holding due process was violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Validity of considering the Consent Judgment Entry when it was not served	The Consent Judgment Entry did not affect Thomas, so service was not required	Thomas: Civ.R.5 required service and proof of service; entry should not be considered	Court: Entry was not properly served with proof; Civ.R.5(B)(4) barred consideration; entry invalid
2. Whether a consent judgment binds all parties when one party did not consent	Termination proper because current trustee and guardian consented and court approval was sufficient	Thomas: He did not consent; labeling it a "consent" judgment was improper and deprived him of hearing	Court: Where consent was not in fact given, the agreed judgment may be vacated; entry must be vacated
3. Due process — opportunity to be heard before termination	Consent of trustee/guardian and court approval meant no further hearing required	Thomas: Denied notice and opportunity to be heard; procedural due process violated	Court: Due process violated because Thomas lacked notice/service and an opportunity to be heard
4. Merits — whether the trust lacked continuing purpose (termination merits)	Trust met statutory termination standard (R.C. 5806.02)	Thomas: Merits not addressed because procedural defects tainted termination	Court: Merits were rendered moot by procedural errors; court declined to decide

Morr v. Crouch, 19 Ohio St.2d 24 (holding a journal entry labeled as a settlement may be vacated where consent was not in fact given)
Rosebrough v. Ansley, 35 Ohio St. 107 (noting judgments by consent are generally not reviewable, but lack of actual consent is an exception)