Court Opinion

ID: 9896210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 19:09:21.911128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:18.562679
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Nexgen Coastal Invests., L.L.C. v. Issa Constr. & Dev., L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-4071.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

NEXGEN COASTAL INVESTMENTS,
LLC,                                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,                   :
                                                                              No. 112335
        v.                                              :

ISSA CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,                                       :

                 Defendant-Appellee.                    :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 9, 2023

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                 Case No. CV-18-902940

                                             Appearances:

                 Keith D. Weiner & Associates Co., LPA and Suzana Pastor,
                 for appellant.

                 John Taylor, for appellee.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:

                   Plaintiff-appellant Nexgen Coastal Investments, LLC (“Nexgen”)

appeals from the trial court’s order entering judgment in the amount of $5,000

against defendant-appellee Issa Construction and Development, LLC (“Issa”) in
favor of Nexgen and dismissing the case with prejudice. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

              This case arises out of a contract dispute. In September 2016, Nexgen

hired Issa to remodel a residential property located at 9002 Park Heights Avenue in

Garfield Heights, Ohio (“the property”). Pursuant to the construction contract, the

remodel was to be completed for $30,500.

              On August 29, 2018, Nexgen filed a complaint for money judgment

and declaratory judgment against Issa, bringing claims of breach of contract, unjust

enrichment, negligence, and fraud against Issa and seeking a declaratory judgment

finding that the mechanic’s lien attached to the property is invalid and should be

immediately released. In the complaint, Nexgen alleged that the remodel was

incomplete and that, despite Nexgen making full payment of $30,500, Issa has not

complied with the terms of the contract and has abandoned the project.

              On February 1, 2019, Issa filed its answer. On July 24, 2019, Issa filed

two counterclaims, alleging that it had completed the initial work on the property in

December 2017, but because of Nexgen’s requests for additional work, Issa incurred

additional labor and material costs of $6,705. Issa also alleged that it had performed

remodeling work for Nexgen at a second property located in Reynoldsburg, Ohio,

and that Nexgen had made a partial payment for that work but had an outstanding

balance of $2,700.
               On October 9, 2019, the case was referred to mediation, to be

completed in January 2020. The trial court docket reflects that Issa and its defense

counsel failed to appear for mediation, and the case was returned to the court’s

docket for further proceedings.

               On May 12, 2020, Nexgen filed a motion with the trial court to post a

bond in lieu of a previously filed mechanic’s lien. The motion stated that the Garfield

Heights property was sold on April 29, 2020, and in agreement with Issa, the

mechanic’s lien was released to facilitate the sale of the property. The amount of the

mechanic’s lien, $9,405, was being held in escrow for a period of 30 days, set to

expire on May 29, 2020. Nexgen’s motion sought an order from the court whereby

Nexgen could obtain the funds from the escrow account, convert the funds to a bond,

and post the bond with the court. On May 19, 2020, the trial court granted this

motion.

               On January 15, 2021, the case was again referred to mediation, and

mediation was scheduled to take place on March 15, 2021.

               On February 9, 2021, Issa filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

partial summary judgment. The trial court granted this motion, and Issa filed a

motion for partial summary judgment on Nexgen’s fraud, negligence, and unjust

enrichment claims. On April 8, 2021, Issa filed a brief in opposition. On May 11,

2021, the trial court denied Issa’s motion for partial summary judgment.
                After numerous delays, on June 16, 2022, the case was once against

set for mediation on August 8, 2022. An August 11, 2022 journal entry reflects that

mediation was successful:

        Mediation hearing held. The parties in the captioned case have reached
        a settlement and agree to submit the dismissal entry within 30 days of
        the date of this order. Each party to bear their own costs. Notice issued.

                On November 16, 2022, Issa filed a motion to enforce memorandum

of understanding, moving the court to enter an order memorializing the terms of the

memorandum of understanding the parties entered during mediation; the

memorandum of understanding was attached to this motion.

                The same day, Nexgen filed a motion to reactivate the case and reset

a trial date. Nexgen’s motion stated that mediation took place on August 11, 2022,

and the parties agreed to a settlement that was memorialized via a memorandum of

understanding. Nexgen goes on to state that the settlement was to be further

memorialized via a settlement agreement and mutual release of all claims, which

was drafted and sent to Issa’s counsel for review and execution. Nexgen alleged that

Issa never signed the settlement agreement and continued to attempt to delay the

case.

                On November 29, 2022, Issa filed a brief in opposition to Nexgen’s

motion to reactivate the case. Issa claimed that both parties proposed changes to

the memorandum of understanding, but neither party had agreed to sign a

settlement agreement containing the updated terms.
                 On November 30, 2022, Nexgen filed a brief in opposition to Issa’s

motion to enforce the memorandum of understanding.

                 On December 20, 2022, the court granted Issa’s motion to enforce the

memorandum of understanding and denied Nexgen’s motion to reactive the case.

In a corresponding journal entry, the court reduced the parties’ memorandum of

understanding to a judgment as follows:

         A) Any and all monies deposited with the court via interpleader are
         hereby released to plaintiff; B) Judgment in the amount of $5,000.00
         is hereby entered against defendant and in favor of plaintiff; C) The
         court holds that defendant admits that it did not complete the work to
         be performed at the property located at 9002 Park Heights, Garfield
         Heights, Ohio under contract with Nexgen Coastal Investments, LLC;
         and D) Plaintiff is granted permission to share this order with any of
         the investors of this specific project and with any party that makes an
         inquiry to plaintiff seeking a reference. The court hereby orders
         plaintiff not to otherwise publish this order.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and assessed each party its own court

costs.

                 Nexgen filed a timely notice of appeal and raises three assignments of

error for our review:

         I. The lower court erred as a matter of law as it both entered judgment
         in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant and dismissed the case with prejudice.

         II. The lower court erred as a matter of law when it granted Defendant-
         Appellee’s motion to enforce the memorandum of understanding.

         III. The lower court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an
         evidentiary hearing where the meaning of the terms of the settlement
         agreement [were] disputed and further, where there was a clear dispute
         as to the existence of a settlement agreement.
Legal Analysis

              As an initial matter, we note that the parties do not dispute that they

reached a settlement during mediation and memorialized the terms of this

settlement in a memorandum of understanding.              Further, both parties have

incorporated the terms of this memorandum of understanding into the record in

this case, including in their appellate briefs. The memorandum of understanding

sets forth the following terms:

      1. Payment and Costs

      The parties agree to settle the above-captioned matter on the following
      terms:

      A. The money placed with the court through Interpleader is to be
      released to the Plaintiff.

      B. Defendant will make a payment of $5,000.00 to Plaintiff within 30
      days.

      C. Defendant will sign an Admission of Incomplete Construction to be
      provided to Plaintiff, however, Plaintiff will agree that it will not publish
      the document and will only share the admission to any of the investors
      on this specific project and with any party that makes an inquiry to
      Plaintiff seeking a reference.

      D. The parties may prepare a more formal admission document but it
      is intended to be similar as what follows:

      Issa Construction and Development, LLC, admits that it did not
      complete the work to be performed at the property located at 9002
      Park Heights, Garfield Heights, Ohio under contract with Nexgen
      Coastal Investments, LLC.

      E. A more formal settlement agreement will be prepared with complete
      mutual releases.
      2. Dismissal & Settlement Documents

      A Dismissal Entry, dismissing the case with prejudice will be prepared
      and signed by the parties and will be submitted to the Court.

      3. Other Terms

      The Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement.

      Each party to bear their own costs.

              These terms are what Issa attached to its motion to enforce the

settlement agreement, and Nexgen does not dispute that these are the terms of the

memorandum of understanding.

              It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to enforce a

settlement agreement, and its judgment will not be reversed where the record

contains some competent, credible evidence to support its findings regarding the

settlement. Natl. Court Reporters, Inc. v. Krohn & Moss, Ltd., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 95075, 2011-Ohio-731, ¶ 8, citing Mentor v. Lagoons Point Land Co., 11th Dist.

Lake County No. 98-L-190, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 6127 (Dec. 17, 1999). Therefore,

we review the trial court’s decision on the motion to enforce the settlement

agreement for abuse of discretion. The term abuse of discretion “implies that the

court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.”     Blakemore v.

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). An abuse of discretion

occurs when a court exercises its judgment in an unwarranted way regarding a

matter over which it has discretionary authority. Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio

St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35.
               Nexgen’s first assignment of error argues that the lower court erred

as a matter of law when it both entered judgment in favor of Nexgen and dismissed

the case with prejudice.     Specifically, Nexgen argues that a case can only be

dismissed if it is still pending, and therefore the trial court’s entry of a $5,000

judgment in Nexgen’s favor precluded it from subsequently dismissing the case. In

support of this argument, Nexgen cites to Geauga Savs. Bank v. Berg, 2017-Ohio-

1368, 89 N.E.3d 69 (8th Dist.).

               Nexgen’s reliance on Berg is misplaced. In Berg, this court held that

the granting of a decree of foreclosure results in a final order and ends that

proceeding and that this is followed by a separate and distinct enforcement action

of the earlier grant of foreclosure. Berg at ¶ 8. Nexgen makes no attempt to clarify

why the unique contours of a foreclosure case apply in the instant case.

               Further, in the context of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement,

the trial court clearly had the authority to enter a judgment for Nexgen and to

dismiss the case. A trial court possesses the authority to enforce a settlement

agreement voluntarily entered by the parties to a lawsuit. Tabbaa v. Koglman, 149

Ohio App.3d 373, 2002-Ohio-5328, 777 N.E.2d 338, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), citing Mack v.

Polson, 14 Ohio St.3d 34, 470 N.E.2d 902 (1984). It is true that a trial court will lose

jurisdiction to proceed in a matter when the court has unconditionally dismissed an

action. Id., citing State ex rel. Rice v. McGrath, 62 Ohio St.3d 70, 577 N.E.2d 1100

(1991). This does not, however, somehow preclude a trial court from entering

judgment for one party before dismissing the action.
               Therefore, Nexgen’s first assignment of error is without merit and

overruled.

               In Nexgen’s second assignment of error, it argues that the trial court

erred when it granted Issa’s motion to enforce the memorandum of understanding.

Nexgen argues that because both parties attempted to add additional terms to their

formal settlement agreement, there is no question that they were unable to agree to

a settlement and the court effectively ordered the parties into a settlement that it

drafted on its own. This argument is not supported by our review of the record. We

reiterate that both parties have presented identical terms from the memorandum of

understanding. Further, these terms are what the court used when it reduced the

memorandum of understanding to a judgment on December 20, 2022.

               “‘A valid settlement agreement is a binding contract between the

parties which requires a meeting of the minds as well as an offer and acceptance.’”

Krohn & Moss, Ltd., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95075, 2011-Ohio-731, at ¶ 10, quoting

Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 683 N.E.2d 337 (1997). Once the court

determines that there is a binding agreement, a party may not unilaterally repudiate

it. Id. at ¶ 11, citing Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-2985, 770

N.E.2d 58. The settlement agreement may be enforced through filing a separate

breach of contract action, or, as in the instant case, by filing a motion to enforce the

settlement. Id.

               The record reflects that the parties had a valid settlement agreement;

Nexgen has consistently referred to the memorandum of understanding as a valid
agreement, including in its own motion to reactivate the case because Issa had

allegedly breached the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the trial court had the

authority to enforce the memorandum of understanding.                Nexgen’s second

assignment of error is without merit and overruled.

               In its third assignment of error, Nexgen argues that the trial court

abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing where the terms of the

settlement agreement were disputed and where there was a clear dispute as to the

existence of the settlement agreement. With respect to Nexgen’s claim that there

was a clear dispute as to the existence of the settlement agreement, we reiterate our

analysis from the second assignment of error. The record, including Nexgen’s own

pleadings, makes clear that a settlement agreement existed between the parties.

               Ohio courts have held that if a factual dispute arises concerning the

existence or the terms of a settlement agreement, an evidentiary hearing is required

to determine the nature of the purported settlement. Royal Property Invest. Group,

L.L.C. v. Bangs Hair Salon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101436, 2014-Ohio-5155, ¶ 17.

“‘To constitute a valid settlement agreement, the terms of the agreement must be

reasonably certain and clear, and if there is uncertainty as to the terms then the court

should hold a hearing to determine if an enforceable settlement exists.’” Id., quoting

Chase Home Fin., L.L.C. v. Keys, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99920, 2014-Ohio-2639,

¶ 12, citing Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34, 37, 470 N.E.2d 902 (1984).

               Here, both parties have presented identical terms of the

memorandum of understanding that Issa’s motion sought to enforce. As such,
despite Nexgen’s claims now to the contrary, there was no uncertainty as to the

terms of the settlement to require an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the trial court

did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion to enforce without holding an

evidentiary hearing. Nexgen’s third assignment of error is overruled.

              Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the 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

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR