Bryan v. Johnston ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Bryan v. Johnston, 
    2012-Ohio-2703
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    SEVENTH DISTRICT
    EARL BRYAN, ET AL.,                             )
    )
    PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,                   )
    )
    V.                                              )          CASE NO. 11 CA 871
    )
    EUGENE JOHNSTON, ET AL.,                        )               OPINION
    )
    DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.                  )
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                       Civil Appeal from Municipal Court of
    Carroll County, Ohio
    Case No. CVG1100098
    JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiffs-Appellees                        Attorney Kelley Bryan
    Childers and Smith
    70 Public Square
    P.O. Box 252
    Carrollton, Ohio 44615
    For Defendants-Appellants                       Eugene Johnston, Pro-se
    Angela Arkenburgh, Pro-se
    369 South Lisbon Street
    Carrollton, Ohio 44615
    JUDGES:
    Hon. Gene Donofrio
    Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich
    Hon. Mary DeGenaro
    Dated: June 12, 2012
    [Cite as Bryan v. Johnston, 
    2012-Ohio-2703
    .]
    DONOFRIO, J.
    {¶1}    Defendants-appellants, Eugene Johnston and Angela Arkenbaugh,
    appeal from a Carroll County Municipal Court judgment evicting them from the duplex
    they had been renting from plaintiffs-appellees, Earl and Tonya Bryan.
    {¶2}    On March 14, 2011, appellees filed a forcible entry and detainer action
    against appellants. Appellees alleged that appellants failed to pay the monthly rent
    owed to appellees in the amount of $550 and sought to evict appellants.
    {¶3}    The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 30, 2011,
    whereby appellants agreed to be evicted on April 13, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. The court
    continued the case until April 20 to determine damages.
    {¶4}    Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on April 4, 2011.
    {¶5}    Initially, we should note that “the first cause of a forcible entry and
    detainer action is a final appealable order and the damages portion of the case need
    not be decided before the appeal of the eviction.” Nofzinger v. Blood, 6th Dist. No. H-
    03-021, 
    2004-Ohio-2461
    , ¶11, citing Skillman et al., v. Browne et al., 
    68 Ohio App.3d 615
    , 
    589 N.E.2d 407
     (6th Dist. 1990); Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist. v. Foster
    & Kleiser, Div. of Metromedia, 8th Dist. No.52717, 
    1987 WL 17623
     *1 (Sept. 24,
    1987). Thus, the fact that the trial court did not yet rule on the damages cause of
    action in this case does not render the eviction judgment a non-final order.
    {¶6}    Appellants are proceeding with this appeal pro se. Their assignment of
    error is not actually an assignment of error, but is more a statement of what they
    allege occurred:
    We appeared in Carroll County Municipal Court on March
    30, 2011 for a hearing on case no. CVG1100098. Earl Bryan et
    al. and Eugene Johnston et al. were led to a room with Mike
    Durkin, Mediator for Judge Willen, to discuss the case. Eugene
    Johnston et al. showed a copy of the cashed rent check for the
    dates of Feb. 1 to March 1 to Mike Durkin. Mike Durkin advised
    us to hold onto our documents and evidence until the next
    hearing, which was scheduled April 13, 2011.
    -2-
    {¶7}   Appellants’ brief fails to include an argument with citations to case law,
    statutes, or other authority to support their position in violation of App.R. 16(A)(2)(7).
    The brief also has numerous attachments that do not appear anywhere in the record.
    In a July 13, 2011 judgment entry, we informed appellants that these attachments are
    not evidence and we would only consider evidence that was presented in the trial
    court. Additionally, in their statement of facts, appellants set forth numerous facts
    that find no support in the record concerning a bad furnace, mold, and sewage.
    {¶8}   A pro se appellant is held to the same obligations and standards set
    forth in the appellate rules that apply to all litigants. Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 
    111 Ohio App.3d 357
    , 363, 
    676 N.E.2d 171
     (8th Dist. 1996). Despite appellants’ lack of
    compliance with the Appellate Rules, in the interest of justice, we will consider their
    argument.
    {¶9}   Appellants’ argument is that their rent was paid current. They state that
    they paid the February 1 to March 1, 2011 rent and appellees cashed the check.
    This was the rent that the complaint alleged appellants did not pay.           Appellants
    request that we reverse the trial court’s judgment so that the eviction is not in their
    names.
    {¶10} Because the judgment entry was entered after mediation and there was
    no trial, there is very little factual information before us. All that can be gleaned from
    the record is that appellees filed a complaint alleging appellants failed to pay rent on
    the duplex unit they were renting from appellees. There are also copies of two
    checks made out from “Eugene Johnston” to “Earl Bryan” in the amount of $450 each
    and dated January 31 and February 28, 2011. There is no record of any testimony
    by any of the parties and there are no factual findings by the trial court.
    {¶11} The agreed judgment entry simply states that eviction is to take place
    on Wednesday April 13, 2011, at 11:30 a.m. and that the second cause of action
    (damages) is continued until Wednesday April 20, 2011. All parties and the court
    signed the agreed judgment entry.
    {¶12} Settlement agreements are highly favored as a means of resolving
    -3-
    disputes. State ex rel. Wright v. Weyandt, 
    50 Ohio St.2d 194
    , 197, 
    363 N.E.2d 1387
    (1977). When parties have agreed to settlement terms, the trial court may sign a
    journal entry reflecting the terms and may enforce the agreement.           Hughes v.
    Yanikov, 8th Dist. No. 07CA009235, 
    2008-Ohio-2904
    , ¶9, citing Brilla v. Mulhearn,
    
    168 Ohio App.3d 223
    , 
    859 N.E.2d 578
    , 
    2006-Ohio-3816
    , ¶20 (9th Dist.).               In an
    agreed judgment,
    litigants voluntarily terminate a lawsuit by assenting to specified
    terms, which the court agrees to enforce as its judgment by
    signing and journalizing an entry reflecting the terms of the
    settlement agreement. Grace v. Howell, 2d Dist. No. 20283,
    
    2004-Ohio-4120
    , ¶9.
    {¶13} A court is not bound to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to signing a
    settlement agreement.     Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 
    14 Ohio St.3d 34
    , 
    470 N.E.2d 902
     (1984), at the syllabus. The court may set aside a settlement agreement only on
    the basis of fraud, duress, undue influence, or a factual dispute concerning the
    existence of the terms of the agreement. 
    Id.
    {¶14} Appellants have not asserted any of these reasons for setting aside the
    settlement agreement.      Nor did they file a motion to set aside the settlement
    agreement in the trial court.
    {¶15} The parties entered into an agreed judgment entry after engaging in
    mediation.   None of the reasons for setting aside a settlement agreement are
    present. There are very limited facts of record for us to consider. And appellants
    have not advanced any real argument for setting aside the agreement that they
    presumably negotiated for in mediation.          On our limited record, appellants’
    assignment of error is without merit.
    {¶16} For the reasons stated above, the trial court’s judgment is hereby
    affirmed.
    -4-
    Vukovich, J., concurs.
    DeGenaro, J., concurs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11 CA 871

Judges: Donofrio

Filed Date: 6/12/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014