Bugeja v. Luzik, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2007)
Bugeja v. Luzik, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2007)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Bugeja filed a complaint against Luzik, who was granted leave to move or plead by August 26, 2004. However, she did not file her answer until August 31, 2004. A mediation conference was scheduled by the trial court and took place on October 7, 2005. Bugeja did not appear but a mediation settlement was reached in her absence.
{¶ 3} On October 12, 2005, the trial court issued a judgment entry dismissing the case with prejudice at defendant's cost. Luzik then filed a motion to enforce settlement on February 3, 2006 and Bugeja's counsel requested guidance from the court relative to the motion on February 17, 2006. On February 28, 2006 the trial court issued a judgment entry granting the motion to enforce settlement and calling for the issuance of two settlement checks, one to Bugeja and one to her counsel. The trial court then dismissed the case with prejudice a second time.
{¶ 4} As her sole assignment of error, Bugeja states:
{¶ 5} "Whether the trial court erred in ruling on Defendant/Appellee's Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement after having previously unambiguously and unconditionally dismissed the case with prejudice, thereby divesting itself of jurisdiction in this case."
{¶ 6} Here, Bugeja argues, and notably Luzik agrees, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule upon the motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the case had already been "settled and dismissed."
{¶ 7} A settlement agreement is a contract designed to terminate a claim by preventing or ending litigation and is valid and enforceable by either party. Continental W. Condominium Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E.Ferguson, Inc. (1996),
{¶ 8} In this case, the common pleas court issued a final judgment entry stating, "case settled and dismissed with prejudice at defendant's cost." The court neither incorporated the settlement agreement into its judgment entry nor indicated that it retained the jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. See Cinnamon Woods CondominiumAssn., Inc. v. DiVito (Feb. 3, 2000), 8th Dist. No. 76903;Kleinholz. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal was unconditional. See id. A trial court loses authority to proceed and loses jurisdiction over an entire case, including the settlement agreement, in a case after it unconditionally dismisses it. Kleinholz, supra, citing State ex rel.Rice v. McGrath (1991),
{¶ 9} For the foregoing reasons, Bugeja's sole assignment of error is meritorious. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to enforce judgment is vacated.
*Page 1Donofrio, J., Waite, J., concurs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Margaret Bugeja v. Sara Luzik
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Unpublished