Zacharias v. Medicore Transport Inc. , 2017 Ohio 8171 ( 2017 )

[Cite as Zacharias v. Medicore Transport Inc., 2017-Ohio-8171.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 105413
KATHLEEN ZACHARIAS
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
MEDICORE TRANSPORT INC., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
JUDGMENT:
VACATED AND REMANDED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-15-852605
BEFORE: McCormack, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Celebrezze, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 12, 2017
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Daniel J. Ryan
Timothy Ryan
Ryan L.L.P., Inc.
1370 Ontario St., Ste. 2000
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Jonathan W. Philipp
Law Office of Jonathan W. Philipp
Six PPG Place, Ste. 870
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
TIM McCORMACK, J.:
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Kathleen Zacharias (“Zacharias”) appeals from the trial
court’s granting of defendants-appellees, Chuck Orlando and Medicore Transport Inc.’s
(“defendants”) motion to enforce settlement agreement and denial of her motion for
reconsideration. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide defendants’ motion
to enforce settlement agreement, we vacate the judgment granting that motion.
Procedural and Substantive History
{¶2} On October 14, 2015, Zacharias filed a complaint against defendants in the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint alleged that on December 9,
2011, Chuck Orlando, in the course of his employment with Medicore Transport Inc.,
negligently drove his car and struck Zacharias, causing her injuries.
{¶3} On January 4, 2016, the case was referred to mediation. On June 14, 2016,
the parties attended mediation with a Cuyahoga County court mediator. After attorneys
for both parties signed a “Stipulation for Dismissal” that reflected that “the
above-captioned matter is settled and dismissed with prejudice. Defendant to pay court
costs,” the court journalized an order declaring the case “settled and dismissed with
prejudice” on June 15, 2016.
{¶4} On September 9, 2016, defendants filed a motion to enforce settlement.
On September 19, 2016, Zacharias, acting pro se, filed an answer to defendants’ motion
to enforce settlement, motion to deny defendants’ motion to enforce settlement, and
plaintiff’s motion to set aside settlement.
{¶5} On October 24, 2016, Zacharias filed a pro se “Motion to Withdraw
Mitchell A. Weisman, Esq., as Plaintiff’s Attorney of Record.” The trial court held this
motion in abeyance pending the hearing on defendants’ motion to enforce settlement.
{¶6} On December 7, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on defendants’ motion
to enforce settlement. Zacharias failed to appear at this hearing, although her counsel
was present. On December 13, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to enforce
settlement, denied Zacharias’s motion to set aside settlement, and found Zacharias’s
motion to withdraw her counsel as moot.
{¶7} On January 10, 2017, Zacharias filed a motion for reconsideration or to
vacate judgment. On January 21, 2017, the trial court denied this motion.
{¶8} On February 1, 2017, Zacharias filed a notice that she was appealing the trial
court’s June 2016 dismissal, the December 2016 grant of defendants’ motion to enforce
settlement, and January 2017 denial of her motion for reconsideration. Only Zacharias’s
appeal of the trial court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration was timely.
Jurisdiction
{¶9} It is well settled that a judgment rendered by a court that lacks jurisdiction
is void ab initio. Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St. 3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 941 (1988).
Further, subject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a court by agreement of the
parties, nor may lack of subject matter jurisdiction be waived. State ex rel. Lawrence
Dev. Co. v. Weir, 11 Ohio App. 3d 96, 97, 463 N.E.2d 398 (10th Dist.1983). Lack of
subject matter jurisdiction may also be the basis for mandatory sua sponte dismissal by
the courts. Id.
{¶10} “A trial court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement after a case
has been dismissed only if the dismissal entry incorporated the terms of the agreement or
expressly stated that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.” Infinite
Sec. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties II, 143 Ohio St. 3d 346, 2015-Ohio-1101, 37
N.E.3d 1211, ¶ 22.
{¶11} The dismissal entry at issue in the instant case does not incorporate the
terms of the settlement agreement nor does it expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce the
agreement. The June 15, 2016 journal entry dismissing Zacharias’s claims states as
follows: “Case called for mediation. All parties appeared. The case is settled and
dismissed with prejudice. Defendants to pay court costs. The court may enter an order
accordingly pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). The clerk of courts is directed to serve this
judgment in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).”
{¶12} Therefore, we find that the court lacked jurisdiction over the settlement
agreement in the instant case. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the trial court for
lack of jurisdiction, which renders both of Zacharias’s assigned errors moot.
{¶13} This cause is vacated and remanded to the lower court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee 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.
________________________________________
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR