Condominiums at Stonebridge Owners' Assn. v. Patton, (Ohio 2009)

Ohio Supreme Court

Status: 2009-Ohio-2586

Docket Number: 92039

Parts: Rocco

Linked as:

Summary

APPEAL AND ERROR – FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDERS

Summary

APPEAL AND ERROR – FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDERS

Text

[Cite as Condominiums at Stonebridge Owners' Assn. v. Patton, 2009-Ohio-2586.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92039

THE CONDOMINIUMS AT STONEBRIDGE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

vs.

ROBERT PATTON, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-645753

BEFORE: Rocco, P.J., Dyke, J., and Jones, J.

RELEASED: June 4,

- 1 -

JOURNALIZED:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Thomas I. Michals Deneen LaMonica Jeffrey J. Lauderdale Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP 1400 McDonald Investment Center 800 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Edward J. Heben, Jr.

Heben & Associates The Life Building, #200 3740 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115

N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(C) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(C). See, also, S.Ct. Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).

- 2 -

KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.:

Plaintiff-appellant, The Condominiums at Stonebridge, Ltd., and third party defendants-appellants, The K&D Group, Inc., Douglas Price, Robert Corna, and Cyndi Kriz, appeal from a common pleas court order finding that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement on February 4, 2008, and ordering the parties to comply with the terms of this agreement within thirty days of the court's order. The appellants assert that the common pleas court erred by granting the motion to enforce settlement agreement which was filed by defendants-appellees, Robert Patton and Jeannie Patton. We find the common pleas court's order was not final and appealable. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

The order from which appellants have appealed states, in its entirety: "Defendants/third party plaintiffs, Robert and Jeannie Patton's motion to enforce settlement agreement and for sanctions, filed 2- 15-08 is granted in part and denied in part.

"Hearing was held on 3-28-08 on motion to enforce settlement agreement. After considering the arguments of counsel, the applicable law and relevant facts, the court finds that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement on February 4, 2008. Based on this finding, defendants/third party plaintiffs, Robert and Jeannie Patton's, motion to enforce settlement agreement is granted. Parties are to comply with the terms of settlement agreement within thirty (30) days of this order.

"Defendants/third party plaintiffs, Robert and Jeannie Patton's motion for sanction, is denied.

- 3 -

"Final.

"Court cost assessed as each their own."

"An order is a `final order' subject to appeal under R.C. 2505.02(B), * * * when it affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment. R.C. 2505.02(B)(1)." "One fundamental principle in the interpretation of judgments is that, to terminate the matter, the order must contain a statement of the relief that is being afforded the parties." Harkai v. Scherba Indus. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 211, 215. "The matters should be disposed of `such that the parties need not resort to any other document to ascertain the extent to which their rights and obligations have been determined.'" Bergin v. Berezanski, Summit App. No. 21451, 2003-Ohio-4266, ¶5.

Despite the common pleas court's use of the word "final," neither its statement that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement nor its order for the parties to comply with the agreement disposes of any claim or states the relief being afforded to any party. All claims remain pending before the court. We have no jurisdiction to review this order and must dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

It is ordered that appellees recover from appellants costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.

- 4 -

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR

- 5 -