{¶ 1} Thе' appellants, Khaled Tabbaa and Deema Tabbaa, appeal the judgment of the trial court in adopting terms for a settlement agreement. For the reasons set forth below, wе reverse and remand.
{¶ 2} This case is based on an original action between the appellants and the appellees, John C. Koglman, trustee of the Koglman Family Trust, and Irene Koglman. The Tabbaas, lessees of appellees’ commercial building, brought an action against appellees asserting claims for breach of the lease and various other claims. Appellees then counterclaimed against the Tabbaas for breach of the lease agreement.
{¶ 3} This matter went to trial, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the appellees and an award of $225,000 based on their counterclaim.
{¶ 4} On August 17, 2001, in an effort to aid in the execution of the jury award, the Koglmans filed an “Affidavit and Order and Notice of Garnishment” with the Cleveland Municipal Court. During post-triаl motions, the parties *376 entered into a settlement agreement before the trial court on August 20, 2001. At the hearing, the terms of the settlement were put forth on the record:
{¶ 5} “Mr. Corrado [counsel fоr Tabbaa]: The agreement for settlement is as follows:
{¶ 6} “The plaintiffs will pay the Koglman Family Trust the sum of three hundred thousand dollars on or before October 4, 2001.
{¶ 7} “Along with the settlement, the Koglman Family Trust will retаin the security deposit that it has from the plaintiffs.
{¶ 8} “And the Koglman Family Trust will retain any and all equipment that currently resides in the building at the premises that was in question here.
{¶ 9} “The Court: The equipment and any fixtures that may be in the building?
{¶ 10} “Mr. Corrado: Yes.
{¶ 11} “The Court: And the amount of the security deposit was ten thousand dollars of which the Koglman Family Trust will retain?
{¶ 12} “Mr. Corrado: Yes sir. And then to move along here, the parties will split the cost of this lawsuit.
{¶ 13} “And both thе parties have represented to each other that they have no bill of costs that they are going to submit to the clerk’s office as part of this litigation.
{¶ 14} “And the parties will execute а full release of all of the parties that were in the suit and their attorneys.
{¶ 15} “And we will be filing an entry of settlement with the Court, which will state that this case has been settled and dismissed with prejudice, and the pаrties to split costs.
{¶ 16} “And that your Honor has asked us to try and get that done by the end of this week.
{¶ 17} “And everything is dismissed with prejudice, and all current and pending matters, as well as anything else.”
{¶ 18} The next day, August 21, 2001, the Clevelаnd Municipal Court garnished one or more bank accounts over which Khaled Tabbaa was listed, as having control. The total amount garnished by the court was $36,713.19.
{¶ 19} After the garnishment action, attornеy Corrado refused to allow the signing of the settlement agreement and release because of the addition of parties and terms that would prohibit all future actions based on the aрpellees’ garnishment action. This matter remained unresolved, and the Tabbaas did not render *377 payment of the $300,000 as had been promised pursuant to the settlement agreement.
{¶ 20} Both sides then filed motions requesting enforcement of the settlement agreement. On October 16, 2001, this matter came before the trial court on the motions, and the trial court issued a journal entry that ordered thе following:
{¶ 21} “1. On August 20, 2001, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the presence of the Court and recited the terms of the Settlement Agreement upon the record.
{¶ 22} “2. The Settlement Agreement and Release attached hereto fairly and accurately encompass the material terms of the Settlement Agreement that the parties reached on August 20, 2001.
{¶ 23} “3. Any additional provisions contained in the attached Settlement Agreement and Release are ordered by the Court as being fair and equitable and within the Court’s discretion in the enforcement of the August 20, 2001 Settlement Agreement.”
{¶ 24} The appellants now appeal the actions of the trial court and assert the following two assignments of error:
{¶ 25} “I. The court abused its discretion and committed prеjudicial error by adding new and different terms to a previously entered into settlement agreement.”
{¶ 26} “II. The court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on the disputed facts in the settlement agreement.”
{¶ 27} Appellants’ two assignments of error will be combined for purposes of review because they represent elements of the same argument.
{¶ 28} The appellants contend in their first assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion when it enforced a settlement agreement that included additional terms and parties not agreed to by the appellants in the originаl settlement agreement. In their second assignment of error, the appellants maintain that because of facts in dispute, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the disputed facts.
{¶ 29} Initially, this court recognizes that a trial court possesses the authority to enforce a settlement agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties to a lawsuit.
Mack v. Polson Rubber Co.
(1984),
{¶ 30} In the case sub judice, the docket reflects that a hearing was held on August 20, 2001, at which the parties orally agreed to settle the case and recorded parts of the settlement on the record. Following this hearing, the trial court issued a journal еntry that settled and dismissed the case and called for a written settlement agreement and release to be submitted to the court later. Therefore, the dismissal was based upon the partiеs’ completion of a condition- — -a settlement and release. Since the focus of this appeal is on the court’s acceptance of the appellees’ prоposed settlement agreement and release, the trial court therefore maintains jurisdiction to entertain a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
{¶ 31} The standard of rеview this court must apply to the actions of the trial court in this case is abuse of discretion. See
Hillbrook Bldg. Co. v. Corporate Wings, Inc.
(Sept. 5, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68619,
{¶ 32} In the instant cаse, the appellants contend that the action of the trial court amounted to an abuse of discretion when the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on the addition of new parties and terms in the revised settlement agreement and release proposed by the appellees.
{¶ 33} “Where the parties in an action * * * voluntarily enter into an oral settlement agreement in the presence of the court, [the] agreement constitutes a binding [and enforceable] contract.”
Spercel v. Sterling Industries
(1972),
{¶ 34} In the case sub judice, the appellants maintain that there are factual disputes as to the terms of the agreement, namely, the scope of the release as to future aсtions against the appellees and the identity of those parties who are precluded from relitigation under the court-ordered release, as well as a question as to the inclusion of indemnification in the release.
{¶ 35} Whether or not this court agrees with the final determination of the trial court and its conclusion that the submitted settlement agreement and release aсcurately represent the material terms set forth by the parties in their August 20, 2001 settlement agreement, the trial court failed to conduct the necessary hearing as warranted by the disputed terms. Althоugh the appellees may maintain that a hearing was conducted in chambers, at which appellant’s counsel stated that they did not need to go on record, there were later assertions made by the appellants that there was in fact no hearing regarding the settlement terms. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing before rendering judgment on the proposed settlement agreement and release.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.