Opinion ID: 2979927
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants’ Failure to Submit Evidence

Text: Reversal of the district court’s decision is also required, the Smiths argue, because the defendants did not introduce any evidence to establish that the parties reached an agreement. Similarly, they contend that the defendants failed to introduce evidence demonstrating that the courtentered agreement contains the same terms as those actually agreed to by the parties during the May 1 conference. In support of their argument, they rely on Powers v. MagiTech Corp., No. 2001-L- 5 In a related argument, the Smiths argue that Chase’s and ABN AMRO’s waiver of their deficiency claims is insufficient consideration to support the agreement. The Smiths have not cited, and we have not found, any authority suggesting that the promise to forgo pursuit of the deficiency claims was insufficient consideration under Ohio law. See, e.g., Mathis v. St. Alexis Hosp., 650 N.E.2d 141, 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (explaining that a promise to forbear pursuit of a legal claim is generally sufficient consideration provided the promisor subjectively believes the claim is valid). 11 Nos. 08-3948, 08-4011 Smith, et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., et al. 015, 2002 WL 445045 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2002), where the court reversed a trial court’s grant of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement because there was no evidence in the record establishing that the movant’s drafted agreement reflected the oral agreement reached between the parties. Unlike Powers, the evidence of a binding oral settlement agreement in the present case is contained in the district court record, particularly in the transcript of the May 1 settlement conference. Consequently, the district court did not err by failing to require defendants to introduce additional evidence to establish the existence of an agreement. Moreover, the Smiths do not point to any material differences between the oral agreement reached at the May 1 hearing and the district court’s Order memorializing the agreement. For all of these reasons, the district court did not err in finding that the parties reached an oral settlement agreement.