Wilson v. Rowe, 2016 Ohio 523

In early 2015 a Facebook post about allegedly abused dogs identified a nearby residence; neighbors (including Rowe) checked the property and community members repeatedly drove by.
On February 3, 2015 Rowe drove through an alley, looked through a fence gap, and was confronted by Doug and Baleigh Wilson while driving on the street; Rowe pulled a concealed gun and pointed it at Baleigh; police later instructed Rowe to place the gun on his car.
The Wilsons reported additional encounters they claimed involved Rowe (honking, yelling, following on a motorcycle); Rowe admitted some contacts and denied others; he said he was gathering evidence for his defense in criminal proceedings arising from the gun incident.
Baleigh filed a pro se petition for a civil stalking protection order on behalf of her family; an ex parte order was entered then extended pending a full hearing.
At a June hearing the parties signed a settlement agreement drafted by Rowe’s counsel limiting Rowe’s passing in front of the Wilsons’ house; the trial court refused to approve it as unenforceable and continued to a full hearing.
After a July 30, 2015 full hearing the trial court granted the civil stalking protection order; Rowe appealed, raising sufficiency of evidence and the court’s rejection of the settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a civil stalking protection order (menacing by stalking)	Wilson: February 3 gun incident plus repeated contacts created fear of physical harm and a pattern of conduct	Rowe: Evidence insufficient to show a pattern causing fear; incidents isolated or denied	Court: Sufficient evidence—gun incident caused fear of physical harm and coupled with continued contacts satisfied statutory standard; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred in refusing to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement	Wilson: disputed her full consent and agreement terms were unenforceable; court should protect parties/future remedies	Rowe: Settlement (signed in court) was binding and should have been enforced	Court: No error—terms were disputed/unenforceable, record lacked a clear, binding agreement; court within discretion to refuse enforcement

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (judgment supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against manifest weight)
Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610 (Ohio 1993) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for trial court on credibility issues)
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial judge best able to observe witness demeanor)
Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1997) (trial judge should not enforce a purported settlement when existence or substance is legitimately disputed)
Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36 (Ohio 1972) (oral settlement agreement entered in presence of court can constitute a binding contract)
Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1984) (court may enforce settlement agreements under appropriate circumstances)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears burden of showing error by reference to the record)