Title: In re Disqualification of Unruh

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Unruh, 127 Ohio St.3d 1244, 2010-Ohio-5960.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF UNRUH. 
MYATT ET AL. v. MYATT ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Unruh,  
127 Ohio St.3d 1244, 2010-Ohio-5960.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification ordered. 
(No. 09-AP-120 — Decided January 25, 2010.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Summit County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. CV-2007-12-8610. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendants Daniel and Denise Myatt have filed affidavits with the 
clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge 
Brenda Burnham Unruh from further proceedings in case No. CV-2007-12-8610, 
a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. 
{¶ 2} The allegations in the affidavits stem from Judge Unruh’s 
participation in mediation and settlement negotiations for the parties.  In July 
2008, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations during a status conference.  At 
the conclusion of negotiations, the parties apparently advised Judge Unruh that 
they had reached a settlement, and the judge subsequently ordered the case settled 
and dismissed.  Upon circulation of the settlement documents, the affiants (who 
were defendants below) refused to sign the documents because they disputed 
whether an agreement had been reached and whether the documents accurately 
reflected the content of the settlement discussions.  After the parties were unable 
to execute the settlement documents, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion to 
enforce the settlement agreement. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} The affiants appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the judge’s 
decision to grant the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.  The court of 
appeals found that a dispute existed as to whether the parties had reached a 
settlement and, if an agreement had been reached, whether the settlement 
documents accurately reflected the terms of the agreement.  Accordingly, the 
court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on 
the disputed settlement agreement.  Myatt v. Myatt, Summit App. No. 24606, 
2009-Ohio-5796, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 4} Affiants now contend that Judge Unruh should be disqualified 
because she is no longer impartial, has a personal bias, and has obtained personal 
knowledge of disputed facts.  Affiants additionally allege that the judge is likely 
to be a material witness in the proceeding. 
{¶ 5} Judge Unruh has responded in writing to the concerns raised in the 
affidavit of disqualification.  The judge concedes that she has provided extensive 
mediation assistance and facilitated settlement negotiations in the underlying case, 
but she maintains that this will not affect her ability to remain fair, impartial, and 
unbiased in further proceedings.  She states that she has engaged in many 
settlement negotiations in her tenure as a judge and that there is nothing unusual 
or different about this case that will affect her impartiality. 
{¶ 6} For the following reasons, I find that Judge Unruh must be 
disqualified from presiding over the evidentiary hearing on the motion to enforce 
the settlement agreement.  In Bolen v. Young (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 36, 8 OBR 
39, 455 N.E.2d 1316, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that when a 
settlement agreement has been agreed to by the parties in the presence of the 
judge but its terms are not memorialized on the record, the judge cannot adopt his 
or her own understanding of the agreement in the form of a judgment entry if a 
dispute arises regarding the specific terms of the agreement.  Instead, the party 
disputing the agreement is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before another judge 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
in which the original trial judge may be called as a witness to testify as to the 
judge’s recollection and understanding of the terms of the alleged agreement.  Id. 
at 37-38. 
{¶ 7} The same situation presents itself in the underlying action.  The 
parties allegedly reached a settlement agreement in Judge Unruh’s presence.  The 
discussions between the judge and the parties regarding settlement did not take 
place on the record, and it is unclear whether a settlement agreement was reached 
in the first instance or whether the settlement documents accurately reflected the 
terms of the alleged agreement.  Thus, under Bolen, Judge Unruh cannot conduct 
the evidentiary hearing, because there is a significant likelihood that she will be 
called to testify as to her “recollection and understanding of the terms of the 
agreement.”  Id. at 37. 
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, I am compelled to order Judge Unruh’s 
disqualification from presiding over the upcoming evidentiary hearing on the 
motion to enforce the settlement agreement.  See In re Disqualification of Bond 
(2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1221, 763 N.E.2d 593 (disqualification ordered where it 
appeared that the judge would be called to testify).  However, my disqualification 
order applies only to that hearing.  Affiants have not shown that Judge Unruh 
harbors any bias, prejudice, or other disqualifying interest that would necessitate 
her disqualification from further proceedings beyond the evidentiary hearing. 
{¶ 9} The Summit County Court of Common Pleas shall therefore assign 
another judge of that court to preside over the evidentiary hearing on the motion 
to enforce the settlement agreement. 
______________________