{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:us:fae3c7","proof":"sha256:eedd8ed9d8d7d38f8997264eca977aa55ecfbb04b80b1aa8a81b2d6500a845f9","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as MJK Recycling, LLC v. Republic Servs., 2026-Ohio-624.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"MJK RECYCLING, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"-vs-","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., ET","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"AL.,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Case No. CT2025-0079","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Opinion And Judgment Entry","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Common Pleas, Case No. CH2023-0206","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Judgment: Affirmed","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Date of Judgment Entry: February 23, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"BEFORE: David M. Gormley; Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"APPEARANCES: JOSHUA J. BROWN, for Plaintiff-Appellant; RODNEY A. HOLADAY,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"for Defendants-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Montgomery, J.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant appeals from the judgment of the Muskingum County","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Court of Common Pleas granting Defendants-Appellees’ Motion to Enforce a Settlement","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Agreement. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"{¶2} This appeal involves a Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement between","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellees, Republic Services, Inc., Republic Services of Ohio Hauling, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"and Browning Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc. (collectively ''BFIO\") and Plaintiff-Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"MJK Recycling, LLC (“Appellant”). The dispute centers around a closed landfill located","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"on jointly owned property in Muskingum County, BFIO owns two-thirds of the subject","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"property and Appellant owns one-third.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"{¶3} Ohio law requires owners of property on which a closed landfill is located to","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"perform certain post-closure care obligations. The post-closure care must be performed","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"for a minimum of thirty years. If the owner(s) fail to perform the post-closure care, the","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Ohio Environmental Protection Agency can subject the owners to enforcement liability.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Around June of 1993, BFIO began the post-closure care activities for the landfill at issue","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"(“Landfill”) and continues to perform the required care on both the BFIO and Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"properties. BFIO incurs significant costs, approximately $100,000.00 per year, to perform","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"the post-closure care. The Landfill has a single common access road (the \"Access","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Road\"), located on Appellant’s portion of the property. The Landfill is located at the back","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"of the property and is only accessible from the Access Road. Since the Landfill’s closure,","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"BFIO has used the Access Road for ingress and egress to perform its post-closure","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"obligations. A prior owner of Appellant’s property granted an easement to BFIO to use","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"the Access Road, and BFIO paid that owner $500.00 per month. The easement was","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"renewed with the prior owner in 2011.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"{¶4} In 2013, Appellant acquired its one-third portion of the property. Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"continued to accept the $500.00 monthly payments from BFIO to use the Access Road","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"until sometime in 2022. Appellant states that as costs increased for maintenance and","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"value of the Access Road, and the previous contract expired, Appellant requested","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"$2,000.00 per month for continued use of the Access Road. BFIO refused to pay that","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"amount, and Appellant initiated the underlying instant lawsuit seeking damages related","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"to past and future use of the Access Road, trespass, and/or injunctive relief. BFIO filed","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"a counterclaim seeking to recover costs from Appellant associated with the post-closure","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"activities performed by BFIO.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"{¶5} In 2024, Appellant and BFIO (the “Parties”) began settlement negotiations.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"On March 15, 2024, BFIO sent its first settlement offer to Appellant. On March 25, 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Appellant responded and presented BFIO with a “counteroffer” via correspondence. Said","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"counteroffer proposed the now disputed payment term, obligating BFIO to pay $2,000.00","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"per month to Appellant for “any month in which the Access Road is used for","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"ingress/egress to the landfill by BFIO.”1 On April 9, 2024, BFIO counsel sent a letter to","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Appellant’s counsel stating: “the substantial majority of your client’s changed terms are","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"acceptable,” including the payment term to use the Access Road.2 In essence, Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"would grant an easement to BFIO for use of the Access Road (the \"Access Road","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Easement\"), and BFIO would pay Appellant a monthly amount for any month BFIO in fact","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"used the Access Road. See Ex. B to Affidavit of Rodney Holaday, Esq. (“Holaday Aff.”).","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"{¶6} The Parties continued negotiations and several weeks later, on May 8,","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"2024, BFIO counsel wrote an email to Appellant’s counsel that stated “[c]onfirming","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"1 On March 25, 2024, Appellant’s counsel sent a letter to BFIO counsel articulating a “counteroffer","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"regarding your offer made March 15, 2024.” Included therein are the following provisions:","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"“Payment to MJK of $2,000.00 per month from January 2022 to present ($54,000.00 through","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"March 2024). * * * BFIO will agree to pay $2,000.00 per month to MJK for any month in which the","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Access Road is used for ingress/egress to the landfill by BFIO * * *.” See (Plaintiff’s Response to","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Motion to Enforce, attached as Ex. 2.).","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"2 By letter dated April 9, 2024, BFIO counsel wrote “[w]e write in response to MJK’s counteroffer","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"dated March 25, 2024. It was good to see the substantial overlap in positions and agreement of","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"the parties. The substantial majority of your client’s changed terms are acceptable.” The letter","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"goes on to state specific terms to which BFIO did not agree.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"On page 2, the letter provides a revised settlement offer outline to which BFIO agrees and lists","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"items numerically. Number (3) states in part, “Beginning January 1, 2025, BFIO will pay $2,000.00","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"to use the Access Road per calendar month triggered by any single use of the Access Road by","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"BFIO in that calendar month. Payment terms to be set forth in Access Road Easement.”","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"settlement based on our calls. We updated the last settlement points circulated in redline","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"format to reflect” the changes. See “Settlement Action Items” Email, Ex. C to Holaday","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Aff. As noted in the email, BFIO counsel revised the previously circulated settlement","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"terms to conform to the Parties’ current agreement and provided the new terms in red,","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"which \"reflect[ed] the heightened 'limited use' of the Access Road, the increasing","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"payments over time, [Appellant’s] request to make the first drafting effort at the easement","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"for the Access Road, and the related content that no longer applies based on the","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"changes.\" Id. BFIO counsel attached to the email an outline of the agreed upon material","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"settlement deal points, including the payment term BFIO accepted on April 9, 2024. See","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Ex. D to Holaday Aff.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"{¶7} Because the settlement required the Parties to draft supporting documents,","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"including the Access Road Easement, the Parties agreed to jointly notify the Muskingum","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"County Court of Common Pleas that a settlement was reached, but additional time was","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"necessary to draft related documents. On May 20, 2024, BFIO sent an email with a","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"proposed settlement agreement, and stated the remaining issues for documentation on","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"the real estate side are in the hands of BFIO's in-house team. On May 22, 2024, a “Joint","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Notice of Settlement” was signed by both counsel and filed with the trial court. The Joint","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Notice stated that the “Parties have reached a settlement of this matter\" and requested","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"an additional sixty days \"to draft and execute settlement documentation,” which included","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"real estate records that required more time than a settlement agreement alone. It further","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"stated that \"[u]pon the execution of the settlement documentation, the Parties will file a","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"41(A)(1)(b).\" From May to July 2024, the Parties continued to draft relevant settlement","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"documents and send emails back and forth.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"{¶8} On July 11, 2024, Appellant’s counsel sent certain documents to BFIO","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"counsel, and therein proposed a revision to the Access Road easement, and redlined the","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"previous payment term to include a new term requiring guaranteed monthly payments,","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"irrespective of actual use of the Access Road. See Plaintiff’s Resp. to Motion, Ex. 8. BFIO","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"counsel notified Appellant’s counsel that this position breached the essential settlement","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"term previously documented. On August 30, 2024, Appellant’s counsel informed BFIO","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"counsel that Appellant continued to insist on a guaranteed monthly payment rather than","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"the “per use” payment structure. On September 5, 2024, Appellant’s counsel again stated","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"that Appellant was \"not willing to budge on the monthly payments\" and would \"require","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"monthly payments with no regard for actual usage that month.\" Appellant ultimately","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"refused to sign the settlement agreement. As a result, on November 27, 2024, BFIO filed","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"{¶9} In its Decision granting BFIO’s motion, the trial court noted that “the only","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"dispute is a payment term” for BFIO’s use of the Access Road. Based on the documents","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"submitted in support of the motion as well as documents submitted by Appellant in","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"response, the trial court determined that the Parties entered into an enforceable","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"settlement agreement. The court found as follows: (a) the Parties entered into a binding","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"settlement agreement as detailed in the Parties' May 8, 2024, email correspondence and","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"memorialized by the final settlement agreement, Access Road Easement, and Landfill","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Easement sent by BFIO counsel to Appellant’s counsel on October 15, 2024; and (b)","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Appellant failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement by refusing to sign the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"settlement documentation incorporating the agreed-upon terms.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"{¶10} The trial court ordered Appellant to execute and deliver a signed copy of all","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"settlement documents to BFIO within 21 days and held that the \"terms and conditions of","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"the Settlement Documentation are valid and fully enforceable and are hereby expressly","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"incorporated into this Order as the order and judgment of this Court.\" The trial court further","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"ordered the Parties to file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. On August 22,","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"2025, Appellant timely appealed the trial court's order.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"SOLE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BECAUSE IT ORDERED APPELLANT-","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"PLAINTIFFS TO SIGN A NON-EXISTENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.”","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"STANDARD OF REVIEW","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"{¶12} The standard of review applicable to a trial court's ruling on a motion to","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"enforce a settlement agreement depends on the issue presented on appeal and often","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"presents a mixed question of law and fact. Rice v. Am. Select Ins. Co., 2025-Ohio-2597,","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"¶ 12 (5th Dist.); In re Estate of Shoemaker, 2017-Ohio-8699, ¶ 8 (4th Dist.); Kinnett v.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Corporate Document Solutions, Inc., 2019-Ohio-2025, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.). A de novo","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"standard of review is applied to questions of law, such as whether the parties have","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"entered into an enforceable agreement. Id. If the question is factual, such as the terms","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"of settlement, a reviewing court will not overturn the trial court's finding if sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"evidence exists in the record to support the finding. Id.; Shoemaker (when the dispute is","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"an evidentiary one, we will not reverse the trial court's determination that a settlement","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"exists as long as there is sufficient evidence as to the terms of the settlement); Rice, ¶ 12","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"(appellate court’s standard of reviewing a trial court's determination of factual issues is to","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"determine if the court’s findings are supported by competent and credible evidence).","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"{¶13} Settlements are highly favored by the law as an efficient means to resolve","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"litigation. Kinnett, ¶ 19. Generally, a voluntary settlement agreement or stipulation,","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"cannot be repudiated by either party and will be summarily enforced by the court. Ross","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Equip. Corp. v. Riggs, 1999 Ohio App. Lexis 447, *6 (11th Dist.) (enforcing a settlement","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"agreement because in a joint stipulation submitted to the court, the appellant agreed it","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"could not prove damages and stated the case should be dismissed), citing Spercel v.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Sterling Industries, Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 39 (1972). An appellate court should not set","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"aside the judgment of the trial court where the record contains some competent, credible","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"evidence to support the fact that settlement was reached. Id. Here, the dispute is a mixed","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"question of fact and law. We must determine whether the facts demonstrate that","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"settlement was reached, such that an enforceable agreement exists.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"{¶14} In its sole assignment of error, Appellant claims the trial court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"granting the motion to enforce a settlement agreement because no actual agreement","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"existed between the Parties.3 Appellant disputes that it assented to the terms of any such","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"agreement through receipt of the May 8, 2024, email and argues the attachment to the","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"May 8 email is a mere “red-line draft.” Appellant places emphasis on the fact that the","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Access Road Easement (containing the disputed payment term) continued to be drafted","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"after May 8, 2024. Appellant further argues that the altered payment term proposed by","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"3 In its Brief, Appellant states the standard of review is de novo because “the only question is","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"whether the Appellant-Plaintiff MJK is still bound to a settlement term, even after multiple","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"counteroffers are subsequently exchanged and negotiations are clearly ongoing.” Appellant’s","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Brief, at p. 8.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Appellant in July 2024 was a “counteroffer,” thereby negating any previous offer. We","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Settlement Agreements Generally","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"{¶15} A settlement agreement is a particularized form of a contract. Noroski v.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Fallet, 2 Ohio St.3d 77, 79 (1982). It is a \"contract designed to terminate a claim by","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"preventing or ending litigation,” and said contracts are valid and enforceable by either","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"party. Continental W. Condominium Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc., 74","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Ohio St. 3d 501, 502 (1995); Allen v. Bennett, 2007-Ohio-5411, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.); Kinnett,","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"at ¶ 18. A contract is defined as a promise, or a set of promises, actionable upon breach","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"and includes an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a manifestation of mutual assent.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"Kostelnik v. Helper, 2002-Ohio-2985, ¶ 16, quoting Perlmuter Printing Co. v. Strome, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"436 F. Supp. 409, 414 (N.D. Ohio 1976); Swan v. Villas Condo Unit Owners’ Ass’n., 2024-","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"Ohio-2313, ¶¶ 16-17 (1st Dist.); Turoczy Bonding Co. v. Mitchell, 2018-Ohio-3173, ¶ 16","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"(8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"{¶16} A “meeting of the minds” regarding essential terms is necessary for a","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"contract to be enforceable. Kostelnik, at ¶¶ 4, 16 (“To constitute a valid settlement","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"agreement, the terms of the agreement must be reasonably certain and clear”); Kinnett,","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"at ¶ 28. Generally, the “essential terms of a settlement agreement are the price of the","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"settlement to be paid by the defendant and plaintiff’s release of the defendant from","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"liability.” Id., at ¶ 29. An agreement need not be “formalized” or reduced to writing to be","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"enforceable. Indeed, the terms of a contract may be determined from \"words, deeds,","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"acts, and silence of the parties.” Kostelnik, at ¶ 15.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"{¶17} For example, in Spercel, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that although","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"\"[t]here was no formal offer and no formal acceptance,” and no written settlement","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"agreement, “the record warranted a finding that the negotiations reached a point where","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"mutual assent had been expressed orally to settle the litigation.” Spercel, at 39.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Concluding that a binding settlement agreement existed, the court noted the “law requires","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"no more formality and not greater particularity than appears here for the formation of a","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"binding contract.” Id. The Court further stated:","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Once the settlement agreement was achieved through the efforts of the trial","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"judge, plaintiff had a duty, if he wished to disavow that agreement, to file a","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"motion to set it aside. To permit a party to unilaterally repudiate a settlement","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"agreement would render the entire settlement proceedings a nullity, even","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"though * * * the agreement is of binding force.","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"Id., at 40.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"{¶18} \"[W]here all the substantial terms of a contract have been agreed on and","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"there is nothing left for future settlement, the fact alone that it was the understanding that","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"the contract should be formally drawn up and put in writing does not leave the transaction","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"incomplete and without binding force,” unless the parties agreed it was not binding unless","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"reduced to writing and formally executed. Swan, ¶ 22, citing Turoczy Bonding, 2018-","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"Ohio-3173, ¶ 22, quoting Charvat v. Oasis Mtge., Inc., 2003-Ohio-2879, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.);","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"PNC Mtge. v. Guenther, 2013-Ohio-3044, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"{¶19} Ohio courts have routinely enforced settlement agreements that have not","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"yet been reduced to writing but do include the essential terms of the parties’ agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"See, e.g., R&L Carriers, Inc. v. Emergency Response & Training Sols., Inc. , 2019-Ohio-","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"3539 (12th Dist.); Spero v. Project Lighting, LLC, 2013-Ohio-1294, ¶ 30 (11th Dist.)","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"(recognizing that “parties may enter into a contract even if their agreement contemplates","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"further action toward formalization”); Hopes v. Barry, 2011-Ohio-6688, ¶ 42 (11th Dist.)","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"(noting that a term sheet can be enforceable despite anticipated future action to finalize","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"settlement where the “agreement did not anticipate * * * the supplementation of the","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"agreement with additional material terms”); Apple v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2010-Ohio-949","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"(2d Dist.) (finding oral settlement agreement where buyers' counsel orally proposed to","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"settle the lawsuit in return for a payment from manufacturer and manufacturer's counsel","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"orally accepted the offer and confirmed acceptance by a letter sent to buyers' counsel;","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"party could not “repudiate their performance promised in the oral agreement” because","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"they later disagreed with its terms).","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Settlement Agreement Exists as to Essential Terms","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"{¶20} As set forth above, the instant dispute centers around the essential payment","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"term for BFIO’s use of the Access Road and the corresponding Access Road Easement.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"The evidence demonstrates that the Parties expressed mutual assent to such essential","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"payment term. BFIO had used the Access Road since it began the Landfill’s closure","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"obligations in approximately 1993 and even used it after Appellant acquired the property","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"in 2013 up through 2022, when Appellant determined to charge more from BFIO.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"{¶21} On March 25, 2024, Appellant presented BFIO with a settlement","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"“counteroffer” and proposed a monthly charge of $2,000.00 if BFIO used the Access Road","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"during said month. The offer expressly stated that BFIO would be obligated to pay the","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"monthly fee for “any month in which the Access Road is used for ingress/egress to the","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"landfill by BFIO.” On April 9, 2024, BFIO accepted the payment term via correspondence","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"and specifically outlined said term on page 2, stating in relevant part, “[b]eginning","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"January 1, 2025, BFIO will pay $2,000.00 to use the Access Road per calendar month","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"triggered by any single use of the Access Road by BFIO in that calendar month.” The","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"documents relevant to Appellant’s counteroffer and BFIO’s acceptance of the counteroffer","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"are clear and indicate that the payment term was agreed upon to both Parties’","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"satisfaction.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"{¶22} The Parties continued with their negotiations regarding additional terms. On","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"May 8, 2024, BFIO counsel emailed Appellant’s counsel “confirming overall settlement”","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"based upon phone calls between counsel. The first line of the email references the phone","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"calls and indicates that an agreement was reached. As noted in the email, BFIO counsel","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"revised the previously circulated settlement terms to conform to the agreement between","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"counsel, which \"reflect[ed] the heightened 'limited use' of the Access Road, the increasing","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"payments over time, your request to make the first drafting effort at the easement for the","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"Access Road, and the related content that no longer applies based on the changes.\" Id.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"In other words, contrary to Appellant’s position, the redlined changes in the attachment","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"to the May 8, 2024, email established the agreed upon essential terms so that the Parties","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"could begin drafting the actual settlement agreement and any other necessary","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"documents.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"{¶23} Appellant makes much of the fact that the said documents were still being","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"drafted well past May 8, 2024, and Appellant references emails between counsel","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"confirming these drafts. However, this argument ignores the critical fact that the main","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"dispute was the payment term for BFIO’s continued use of the Access Road. It likewise","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"ignores the fact that Appellant itself was the one who counter-offered with the monthly","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"payment term based upon actual use, to which BFIO accepted. The fact that additional","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"documents were being revised does not change the fact that the Parties agreed to the","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"actual use payment term. Appellant argues that it could unilaterally change an essential","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"term for which much of this litigation has been focused upon. We disagree. Simply put,","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"the record warrants a finding that the negotiations reached a point where mutual assent","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"was expressed regarding the essential payment term.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"{¶24} Importantly, the Parties took it one step further and agreed to jointly notify","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas that “the Parties have reached a","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"settlement in the matter.” On May 22, 2024, the Joint Notice of Settlement was signed","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"by both counsel and filed with the trial court. Appellant’s actions, through counsel,","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"indicated assent to the material terms. In the final analysis, if there was no “meeting of","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"the minds” as Appellant vehemently suggests on appeal, Appellant would not have signed","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"and approved the Joint Notice of Settlement that was filed with the court on May 22, 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"and it would not have agreed to divide the drafting duties for the remaining settlement","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"documents. Because the competent, credible evidence exists to support the trial court’s","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"finding that Parties agreed upon the essential payment term for BFIO’s use of the Access","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"Road, we conclude that an enforceable settlement agreement exists. Accordingly, the","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"trial court properly enforced the agreement and Appellant’s sole assignment of error is","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"{¶25} Because sufficient evidence exists to support the trial court’s findings that","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"the Parties expressed mutual assent to the essential terms of settlement, we conclude","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"that an enforceable settlement agreement exists. The trial court properly granted BFIO’s","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Appellant’s sole assignment of error is","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"{¶26} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is Affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"{¶27} Costs to Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"By: Montgomery, J.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Gormley, P.J. and","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"Baldwin, J. concur.","paragraph_id":"para_294"}],"word_count":3512,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"b5161b5614adb7692eb4a1c9e67fa55a6d57fcf2a52927999be8728cf5b6ab8e","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2026/2026-Ohio-624.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-28T11:54:24.271+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05","name":"Alexander v. Conway","decided":"2026-10-05","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05"},{"id":"us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01","name":"Lutheran Home v. DHS; Apl. of: Lutheran Home","decided":"2026-10-01","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01"},{"id":"us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30","name":"State ex rel. Harris v. Put-in-Bay Police Dept.","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30","name":"International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. IL Commerce Comm'n","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29","name":"Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland","decided":"2026-09-29","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29"},{"id":"us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","name":"Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture","decided":"2026-09-23","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23"},{"id":"us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22","name":"Harris County, Texas v. United States Environmental Protection Agency","decided":"2026-09-22","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22"},{"id":"us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21","name":"Columbia Riverkeeper, V. State Pollution Control Hearings Board","decided":"2026-09-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21"},{"id":"us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18","name":"Berkey International, LLC v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","decided":"2026-09-18","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18"},{"id":"us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18","name":"State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections","decided":"2026-09-18","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"b5161b5614adb7692eb4a1c9e67fa55a6d57fcf2a52927999be8728cf5b6ab8e","recomputed_sha256":"b5161b5614adb7692eb4a1c9e67fa55a6d57fcf2a52927999be8728cf5b6ab8e","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-04T02:43:10.602Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","judgment_class":"not_in_register","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":0,"word_count":3512,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:eedd8ed9d8d7d38f8997264eca977aa55ecfbb04b80b1aa8a81b2d6500a845f9","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-05T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T18:20:21","content_hash":"sha256:eedd8ed9d8d7d38f8997264eca977aa55ecfbb04b80b1aa8a81b2d6500a845f9","revalidate_after":"2026-11-04T03:43:12.171Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-3d0adcb50f64e3a4342099f8167af069","response_hash":"sha256:eedd8ed9d8d7d38f8997264eca977aa55ecfbb04b80b1aa8a81b2d6500a845f9"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T02:43:13.046Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-ct2025-0079-2026-02-23&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":15145}}