1 of 96 DOCUMENTS
CUBA B. SCHMID, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. RICHARD F. RUTTER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants
C.A. No. 2505
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Wayne County
1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 4899
BAIRD,
J.,
Page 2
1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 4899, *2
89CA004571, unreported.
In the case sub judice, Rutter contends that the
agreement calls for payment of one-half of the driveway
resurfacing cost to be due 30 days following the
completion "and billing" of the work, while the judgment
entry only calls for payment 30 days after "completion"
of the work. Rutter also claims that the judgment entry
fails to reflect that each parties' maximum liability for the
cost of the driveway resurfacing work was to be $ 837.50.
Upon a review of the record, we hold that [*3] the
judgment entry does not accurately reflect the settlement
agreement read into the record.
The record reveals that the parties did intend that
each parties' liability for the driveway resurfacing be
limited to $ 837.50, and that the parties also intended that
payment would be due 30 days following the completion
"and billing" of the resurfacing work. The trial court's
judgment entry failed to include these provisions.
Rutter further asserts, incorrectly, that the judgment
entry does not reflect that the parties agreed on the record
that: (1) the parties would execute a reciprical easement
agreement and record said agreement on the public
record; (2) that the easement created shall run with the
land; and (3) the new easement agreement would
supercede the earlier "article of agreement" filed on the
public record.
The in-court agreement provided that the parties
were to either record a reciprical easement agreement
and/or the trial court was to require that the judgment
entry memorializing the agreement be recorded in the
chain of title. The judgment entry accurately provides
that the court's order memorializing the agreement is to
be recorded on the public record.