IN THE SHAKER HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COURT CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO COMMERCE PARK PLACE HOLDINGS, LLC: JUDGE K. J. MONTGOMERY Plaintiff, ACTING JUDGE KEITH E. BELKIN f CASE NUMBERS 18-CVG-00298 18-CVG-00299 18-CVG-00300 18-CVG-00301 18-CVG-00301 18-CVG-00302 18-CVG-00303 18-CVG-00304 18-CVG-00361 18-CVG-00362 18-CVG-00363 18-CVG-00364 18-CVG-00365 18-CVG-00366 18-CVG-00367 18-CVG-00368 18-CVG-00369 18-CVG-00370 18-CVG-00371 18-CVR-00003 18-CVvR-00004 18-CVvR-00005 18-CVR-00006 18-CvR-00007 18-CVR-00008 18-CVR-00009 18-CVR-00010 18-CvR-00012 18-CVR-00013 18-CvR-00014 18-CVR-00015 18-CVR-00016 vs. ARIANA CANNAVO, et al., Defendants,18-CVR-00017 18-CVR-00018 18-CVR-00019 18-CVvR-00020 18-CVR-00021 18-CvR-00022 18-CvR-00024 18-CVR-00025 18-CVR-00026 18-CvR-00027 18-CVR-00028 18-CvR-00029 18-CVR-00030 18-CVR-00031 18-CVR-00032 18-CVR-00033 18-CVR-00034 18-CVR-00035, : 18-CVR-00036 18-CVR-00038 18-CVR-00039 18-CvR-00042 18-CVR-00043 18-CvR-00044 18-CVR-00046 JUDGMENT ENTRY This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce In Court Settlement ‘Agreement. BACKGROUND Plaintiffis the owner of The Vue, a luxury apartment located at 23220 Chagrin Boulevard, Beachwood, Ohio. Due to water damage in common areas and other complaints, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.07, thirty-eight (38) tenants deposited their monthly rent with the Clerk of this Court ("CVR Cases”), On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed seventeen (17) separate Page 2 of 8Complaints and Applications to Release Rent Deposited (“CVG Cases”). The Cases were consolidate into Case Number 18-CVG-00298. On April 4, 2018, the Court held a pretrial. At the pretrial, trial was scheduled for April 18, 2018. On April 10, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer, Counterclaim and Jury Demand. Defendants did not pay the filing fee associated with thelr Jury Demand. Defendants Counterclaimed named Plaintiff and Robert L. Stark Enterprises, Inc,, Strategic Properties of North ‘America, Comet Management Services, Inc., Avromi Klor, Brian Weisberg, as well as employees, agents, subsidiaries and related entities ("Additional Entities/People”). On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Bifurcate Claims for Trial. The Court referred this matter to Court Mediation. ‘The parties, however, agreed to employ the services of Dean Michael Borden to mediate this matter. Defendants filed a Motion to Continue the April 18, 2018 trial. Following a discussion with counsel, it was agreed that the Court would conduct a final pretrial on April 18, 2018 and that a trial date would be rescheduled at the final pretrial. On April 18, 2018, the Court met with Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants. During this discussion, the Court advised Counsel that the trial of this matter would begin on May 3, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. The Court also advised Counsel that the Court would grant Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Claims and Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement. In order to meet the requirements of the Court granting Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement, the Court instructed Defendants’ Counsel that it was necessary tofile separate Counterclaims in each of the CVG Cases. The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion for Site Inspection. The site inspection was scheduled for May 3, 2018 at 12:00 noon. The Court also set Page 3 of 8a dispositive motion deadline of April 23, 2018 and a response date of April 30, 2018. Dean Border was also present at the April 18, 2018 pretrial. Following the Court's discussion with Counsel, the Court and Dean Borden engaged in settlement discussions with both parties and their counsel. In addition to Plaintiff's Counsel, Avromi Klor and Brian Weisberg were present on behalf of Plaintiff. In addition to Defendants’ Counsel, Neil Weinberg, head of the tenants’ association was present on behalf of the Defendants. Following extensive settlement discussions between the Court, Dean Borden, Counsel and the representatives, a settlement agreement was reached. The terms of the settlement agreement were read into the Court’s record, Plaintiff's Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel and Defendants’ representative were all present in the Courtroom when the terms of the settlement agreement were read into the record by the Court. Plaintiff's Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel and Defendants’ representative all acknowledged the terms of the settlement agreement and acknowledged that they agreed to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Due to Mr. Klor’s travel schedule, Mr. Weisberg and Mr. Klor were not present in the Courtroom when the Court read the terms of the Settlement Agreement into the record. Prior to their departure, both Mr. Klor and Mr. Weisberg acknowledged to the Court that they understood and agreed to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The terms of the Settlement Agreement as read into the record were: 25% reduction of Defendants’ rent for May, 2018; Release of the rent deposits to Plaintiff; Mutual Release; Confidentiality Agreement relative to the terms of the settlement; Non-disparagement of the other party; ‘May rent would be due May 5, 2018; ov bene Page 4 of 87. Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint at Plaintiff's costs; 8. Dismissal of Defendants’ Counterclaim at Defendants’ costs. Plaintiff's counsel was to prepare the Mutual Release and Dismissal Entry. The Court then advised the parties that the Court would conduct a settlement hearing on May 3, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. The Court advised the parties that Plaintiff and all Defendants were required to attend the May 3, 2018 Settlement Conference. In lieu of personal appearance, Defendants’ counsel was permitted to submitted mutual releases signed by those Defendants who did not attend the May 3, 2018 Settlement Conference. Prior to the Settlement Conference, on May 3, 2018, the Court did visit the Vue. After the site visit, the Court conducted the Settlement Conference. The Settlement Conference was attended by Plaintiff's Counsel and Avromi Klor. The Settlement Conference was also attended by Defendants’ Counsel and nine (9) of the Defendants. None of the Defendants, whether they attended the Settlement Conference or did not attend, had signed the proposed Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (“Settlement Agreement”), The Court discussed the parties disagreement concerning the terms of the Settlement Agreement. After the Court had resolved the semantics of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants’ counsel indicated that Defendants were not willing to sign the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff's Counsel then made an Oral Motion to Enforce the In Court Settlement Agreement. The Court then allowed all of the Defendants who were present at the Settlement Conference to tell the Court about their reaction tothe Settlement ‘Agreement and their concerns about their tenancy. The Court then allowed both Counsel to briefly and succinctly address the Motion to Enforce the In Court Settlement Agreement. The matter was heard and submitted and is addressed in this Judgment Entry. Page 5 of 8Law Ordinarily, an in-court settlement binds the parties, even ifthey donot reduceit to writing, The trial court can properly enter a judgment which accurately reflects an agreement they made in open court and read into the record. Syllabus, Zigmont v. Toto, 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1988). [AJn in-court settlement binds the parties, even if they did not reduce it to writing. Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 60 0.0.2d 20, 285 N.E.2d 324 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus; Rodgers v. Rodgers, Cuyahoga App. No. 52105, unreported, 1987 WL 11192 (May 7, 1987). The trial court can properly enter a judgment which accurately reflects an agreement they made in open court and read into the record. Bolen v. Young, 8 Ohio App.3d 36, 37, 455 N.E.2d 1316, 1318 (1982). Zigmont v. Toto, 47 Ohio App.3d 181, 547 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1988). Settlement agreements are generally favored in the law. Szmania v. Semania, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90346, 2008-Ohio-4091, citing Vasilikas v. Vasilikas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68763, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 2569 (June 20, 1996), Richmond v. Evans, No. 101269, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga, 2015-Ohio-870 (March 12, 2015). The agreement constitutes a binding contract; it cannot be unilaterally repudiated by one of the parties. Walther v. Walther, 102 Ohio App.3d 378, 383, 657 N.E.2d 332 (1st Dist.1995), citing Spercel v. Sterling Indus., Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36, 285 N.E.2d 324 (1972). ""Neither a change of heart nor bad legal advice is a ground to set aside a settlement agreement." Grubic v. Grubic, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73793, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4200 (Sept. 9, 1999), quoting Walther at 383. A settlement agreement ... does not have to be fair and equitable to be binding and enforceable, so long as it is not procured by fraud, Page 6 of 8duress, overreaching or undue influence. Id; Vasilikas, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 2569 at 5-6; Walther ‘at 383, Richmond v. Evans, No. 101269, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga, 2015- ‘Ohio-870 (March 12, 2015). The April 18, 2018 Settlement Agreement is binding on the parties. The Settlement Agreement was the results of numerous hours of mediation conducted by Dean Borden and several hours of negotiations conducted by the Court and Dean Borden that led to an agreed resolution of this dispute. Both parties were represented by counsel. The April 18, 2018 Settlement Agreement was not procured by fraud, duress, overreaching or undue influence. The Settlement Agreement was read into the Court's record and both Counsel and the representatives of both parties acknowledged that they understood and agreed to the settlement agreement. Both the parties and the Court relied on these representations in proceeding forward after the April 18, 2018 pretrial. The April 18, 2018 Settlement Agreement is, therefore, enforceable. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is well taken and should be granted, ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. Defendant's rent for the month of June, 2018 only is reduced by 25%, the Court finds that it is no longer practical to reduce May, 2018 rent; 2. Defendants shall pay the reduced June, 2018 rent by means of a check or money order; 3, The rent deposits currently being held by the Clerk of Court in the CVR Cases, less any Page 7 of 8court costs and fees, is hereby released to Plaintiff. 4, Plaintiff shall release Defendants and Defendants shall release Plaintiff and the Additional Entities/People from any claims, losses or damages set forth in Plaintiff's Complaints, Defendants’ Counterclaim, CVR Cases, rent deposits, arising from the Landlord Tenant relationship, arising under the Ohio Landlord Tenant Act, Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.01 et seq., that may have accrued prior to the date of this Judgment Entry. 5. As much as is possible and practical, the Settlement Agreement shall remain confidential 6. As much as is possible and practical neither party shall disparage the other. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Complaints are dismissed with prejudice at Plaintiff's costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice at Defendant's cost. ‘The Court further finds that pursuantto Rule 54(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure that there is no just reason for delay. Kcting Judge Keith E. Be May 9, 2018 sunaees_-7-18__ Mailed to, By. Page 8 of &