Court Opinion

ID: 9907265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 00:06:30.298333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:09.720994
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Fahrer v. Fahrer, 2023-Ohio-4379.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 NINA FAHRER                                   JUDGES:
                                               Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellant                   Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                               Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                               Case No. 2022 CA 00036
 BRUCE FAHRER

         Defendant-Appellee                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of
                                               Common Pleas, Domestic Relations
                                               Division, Case No. 20 CR 159

 JUDGMENT:                                     Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       December 1, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellant                       For Defendant-Appellee

 BRUCE M. BROYLES                              ANDREW T. LIPP
 1379 Standing Stone Way                       Lantz & Lipp
 Lancaster, Ohio 43130                         123 South Broad Street, Suite #309
                                               Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                               2

Hoffman, J.
      {¶1}    Plaintiff-appellant Nina Fahrer appeals the August 25, 2022 Agreed

Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common

Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Defendant-appellee is Bruce Fahrer.

                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

      {¶2}    The parties were married on March 3, 1990, in Fairfield County, Ohio. The

children born as issue of the marriage are emancipated. Appellant filed a complaint for

divorce on July 2, 2020.     Appellee filed a timely answer on July 29, 2020, and a

counterclaim for divorce on August 28, 2020.       The matter proceeded through the

discovery process.

      {¶3}    After several continuances, the trial court scheduled the final hearing for

August 25, 2022. During the days leading up to the final hearing, the parties engaged in

negotiations and discussions, ultimately reaching an agreement as to all matters on

August 24, 2022. On August 25, 2022, after reviewing the agreement and consulting with

their respective counsel, the parties executed an Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of

Divorce. Thereafter, the parties presented the trial court with the Agreed Judgment

Entry/Decree of Divorce.

      {¶4}    The following exchange occurred between Appellant and her attorney

during her direct examination:

              Q. Okay. And as the Magistrate stated, we’ve entered into an agreed

      judgment entry, decree of divorce; is that correct?

              A. Yes.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                               3

              Q. And you’ve reviewed that document with me, correct?

              A. Yes.

              Q. And you believe that you understand its terms?

              A. Yes.

              Q. Okay. And considering all of the circumstances and all of the

      facts, do you believe that it fairly and accurately divides your assets and

      liabilities?

              A. Except for retirements.

              **

              Q. -- it divides all the ones that we know about, that we’re aware of?

              A. Yeah.

              Q. And you know that in that document that, if there are any

      retirement accounts that have not been disclosed, that we’ve put in there

      that whoever didn’t disclose it, the other party is going to get 50 percent of

      the value of that account, correct?

              A. Correct.

              **

              Q. Okay.      Would you like the Court to adopt the decree, and

      terminate your marriage?

              A. Yes.

              Transcript of August 245, 2022 Hearing at pp. 6-8.

      {¶5}    The trial court then questioned Appellant:
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                                 4

              THE COURT: * * * Do you believe that what you agreed to, as far as

       dividing your assets, dividing your debts, and the spousal support order, do

       you believe all of that is fair and equitable under the circumstances that are

       specific to your case?

              [APPELLANT]: I don’t have peace with it, honestly.

              **

              THE COURT: Okay. That’s not the -- I didn’t ask you if you have

       peace with it. I asked you if, in your opinion, what you have agreed to today

       is fair and equitable under all the circumstances of your case.

              [APPELLANT]: Okay. Yes.

              Id. at pp. 8-9.

       {¶6}   During his direct examination, Appellee stated he believed the terms set

forth in the Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce were a fair and equitable division

of the parties’ assets and debts. Appellee also affirmed he had disclosed all of his assets

and debts. Upon conclusion of the parties’ testimony, the trial court approved the Agreed

Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce, which was filed August 25, 2022.

       {¶7}   It is from the Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce Appellant appeals,

raising the following assignment of error:
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                                   5

              THE     TRIAL      COURT       ERRED       IN    ENTERING        AND

       INCORPORATING           THE       PARTIES        AGREED         JUDGMENT

       ENTRY/DECREE OF DIVORCE WHEN IT WAS CLEARLY BASED UPON

       A MUTUAL MISTAKE OF LAW.

                                                 I

       {¶8}   It is well-settled “[a]n agreed judgment entry is a contract that is reduced to

judgment by a court.” Sovak v. Spivey, 155 Ohio App.3d 479, 801 N.E.2d 896, 2003-

Ohio-6717, ¶ 25, citing Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 39, 285

N.E.2d 324 (1974); See also, Najarian v. Kreutz (Aug. 31, 2001), 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-

00-1302, 2001 WL 1001234,*9 (Aug. 21, 2001) (“Where the parties to a divorce * * * enter

into settlement through an agreed judgment entry, the law of contract applies”) (Citation

omitted). Thus, an agreed judgment entry is subject to the same rules of construction as

a contract, in which common, unambiguous words will be given their ordinary meaning,

unless some other meaning is clearly suggested from the face or overall contents of the

agreement. Ronyak v. Ronyak, 11th Dist. No. 2001-G-2383, 2002-Ohio-6698, ¶ 10

(Citation omitted).

       {¶9}   “A contract may be rescinded under the doctrine of mutual mistake when

the agreement is based upon a material mistake of fact or law.” In re Estate of Stamm,

11th Dist. No. 2005-T-0098, 2006-Ohio-5176 [2006 WL 2796748], ¶ 25 (Citation omitted).

“A mistake is material to a contract when it is ‘a mistake * * * as to a basic assumption on

which the contract was made [that] has a material effect on the agreed exchange of

performances.’ ” Reilley v. Richards, 69 Ohio St.3d 352, 353, 632 N.E.2d 507, 1994-Ohio-
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                                6

528 (Citation omitted). Regarding settlement agreements, “[i]f each party is mistaken as

to a material fact of settlement, then there could be no meeting of the minds, and thus no

valid contract for settlement.” Connolly v. Studer, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 07 CA 846, 2008-

Ohio-1526, ¶ 24.

      {¶10} Appellant’s argument focuses on Article XIII of the Agreed Judgment

Entry/Decree of Divorce, which provides:

             BUSINESS INTERESTS:

             Husband is the owner of or has an interest in the following business:

      Lancaster West Side Coal Co. Inc. and BZK Inc, Husband shall retain any

      and all right, title, stock options, shares, and/or any other interest he may

      have in the above referenced business, including all tangible and intangible

      property and assets free and clear of any claim of Wife, and if necessary to

      relinquish her interest therein, Wife shall timely execute any documents that

      may be required to relinquish her interest therein. With regard to Lancaster

      West Side Coal Co Inc., Wife has agreed to the terms of this paragraph

      based upon Husband’ representation that she has never held any stock, for

      Lancaster West Side Coal Co Inc., in her name.

             Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce at 14.

      {¶11} Appellant maintains, “The parties clearly believed that in order for Appellant

Nina Fahrer to be entitled to share in any interest in the corporations known as Lancaster

West Side Coal Co Inc. and BZK Inc. she had to own shares in the corporations.” Brief
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                                   7

of Appellant at p. 6. Appellant adds, assuming, arguendo, the shares of the corporations

were Appellee’s separate property, the appreciation of the shares over the years of the

marriage was marital property. Appellant submits she was entitled to her share of the

appreciation. Appellant concludes, although she stated at the hearing she understood

the agreement and was entering into it knowingly and voluntarily, the Agreed Judgment

Entry/Decree of Divorce was “based upon a misstatement of the law;” therefore, should

be vacated. Brief of Appellant at p. 7.

       {¶12} In response, Appellee submits, “the assumption made by Appellant from the

language of the decree, referenced above, was not Appellee nor his attorney’s

understanding or belief at the time the parties entered into their agreement to settle the

issues pending in the divorce action, and taking into account Appellee’s attorney’s

numerous conversations with Appellant’s attorneys over the course of the pending

litigation, it is Appellee’s Attorney’s opinion that it was not their understanding or belief

either.” Brief of Appellee at p. 4.

       {¶13} Based upon the record before this Court, we find nothing to support

Appellee’s contention there was a mutual mistake.

       {¶14} “A party will not be granted relief from a unilateral mistake when the mistake

is the result of the negligence of the party seeking relief.” Gartrell v. Gartrell, 5th Dist.

Tuscarawas No. 2007–AP–0071, 181 Ohio App.3d 311, 2009-Ohio-1042, 908 N.E.2d

1019, ¶ 30, citing Aviation Sales, Inc. v. Select Mobile Homes (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 90,

548 N.E.2d 307. “The burden of proving unilateral mistake is on the party seeking

rescission and must be met by clear and convincing evidence.” Id., citing Gen. Tire, Inc.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                                 8

v. Mehlfeldt, Summit App. No. 19269, 1999 WL 420346 (June 23, 1999); Frate v. Rimenik

(1926), 115 Ohio St. 11, 152 N.E. 14 (1926).

      {¶15} The Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce herein included broad

waiver language, to wit:

              15. that the parties intelligently and voluntarily entered into this

      Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce settling all issues in this divorce

      case;

              16. that each party disclosed all assets and liabilities know to him/her

      during the pendency of the case and that each party, in reliance thereon,

      has waived further discovery in their divorce case; * * *

              18. That the parties recognized that they have a right * * * to written

      Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the Court as to the value of

      all marital property, the location of all marital property, the division of all

      marital property, the duration of the marriage, the nature of assets as marital

      or separate, how division of assets and liabilities were to be determined to

      be equitable and fair and other findings * * * regarding property and debt

      division matters;

              19. that the parties hereby expressly, knowingly and voluntarily

      waived their right to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the Court

      as required by Ohio Law except as otherwise provided herein and that the

      division of property and debts provided herein is equitable * * *;
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00036                                                 9

              20. that each party has, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, waived

       any requirement that the Court make a determination regarding the marital

       or separate nature of the property and debts of the parties.

              August 25, 2022 Agreed Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce at pp. 2-

       3.

       {¶16} We also find nothing in the record before this Court to establish a unilateral

mistake on Appellant’s part other than her assertions in her Brief, which are not evidence.

       {¶17} Based upon the foregoing, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶18} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations Division, is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur