[Cite as Alotech Ltd., L.L.C. v. Black, 2017-Ohio-5575.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 No. 104791 

ALOTECH LIMITED L.L.C.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

AUDREY BLACK

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-12-791234 

BEFORE: Kilbane, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Laster Mays, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 29, 2017 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Andrea Whitaker 

William T. Whitaker 

William T. Whitaker Co., L.P.A. 

The Gothic Building 

54 East Mills Street, Suite 301 

Akron, Ohio 44308 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Suzanne Bretz Blum 

Thacker Robinson Zinz L.P.A. 

2330 One Cleveland Center 

1375 East 9th Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.: 

{¶1} Appellant, Audrey Black (“Audrey”) appeals from the trial court’s order 

granting the motion to show cause filed against her by appellee, Alotech Limited, L.L.C. 

(“Alotech”), and the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Alotech. In light of our 

decision in the companion case to this appeal, Alotech Ltd., L.L.C. v. Kayla Barnes, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104389 (the “companion case”), we dismiss this appeal as moot. 

{¶2} The instant appeal and its companion case arise out of a civil action brought 

by Alotech against its Chief Financial Officer, John Black (“John”), his wife, Audrey, and 

other women alleged to have been unjustly enriched by John’s embezzlement of 

Alotech’s business funds. 

{¶3} In January 2013, Audrey’s mother, Inez Urbancic, created a living trust (the 

“Urbancic Trust”) for the sole benefit of John and Audrey’s daughter, Courtney Black 

(“Courtney”). Among the trust’s limited assests is real property located in Euclid, Ohio 

(the “Urbancic Trust asset”). Inez Urbancic passed away in June 2015, and Audrey was 

appointed as the Successor Trustee under the terms of the Urbancic Trust. 

{¶4} In April 2016, Audrey met with representatives of Alotech in an effort to 

resolve Alotech’s claims against her. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties 

reached a settlement agreement whereby Alotech agreed to dismiss its claims against 

Audrey in exchange for her agreement to: (1) transfer title of the Urbancic Trust asset to 

Alotech; (2) pay Alotech $15,000 within 15 days of the signing of the agreement; and (3) 

pay Alotech $150 per month for a period of 100 months. The settlement agreement was 
signed by Audrey and Alotech’s president, John Grassi. A signature line was provided 

for Courtney on the settlement document. 

{¶5} The following day, Audrey contacted Alotech and indicated that she was 

unable to move forward with the settlement agreement because Courtney, the sole 

beneficiary of the Urbancic Trust, refused to give her permission to transfer the trust asset 

to Alotech. Alotech then filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that 

the terms of the Urbancic Trust allowed Audrey, as trustee, to transfer the assets of the 

trust without Courtney’s permission. The trial court agreed and granted Alotech’s 

motion. Alotech next filed a motion to show cause why Audrey should not be held in 

contempt for failing to perform her obligations under the settlement agreement. 

{¶6} In the entry from which Audrey now appeals, the trial court did not make 

specific contempt findings, but did reiterate its earlier ruling that the settlement agreement 

between the parties was enforceable. The trial court stated it “excerises its authority to 

aid in the enforcement * * * of certain provisions of the settlement agreement between 

the parties” and ordered Audrey to “write a check for $300 to Alotech immediately.” 

The court further issued “judgment on the $15,000 that was due from [Audrey]” with 

statutory interest from the date of judgment. The court found that Alotech was entitled to 

its attorney fees from Audrey “expended to secure judicial assistance with the 

enforcement of the settlement agreement.” 

{¶7} In the companion case, we found the settlement agreement between Audrey 

and Alotech to be unenforceable because it is violative of public policy, namely the 
“absolute fiduciary duty” owed by a trustee to “act in the best interest of the trust 

benficiary.” Because we have found the settlement agreement between Alotech and 

Audrey to be unenforceable, it follows that the trial court’s order aiding in execution of 

the settlement agreement and awarding attorney fees is void. Accordingly, this appeal is 

moot. 

{¶8} Appeal is dismissed. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR