To Enforce a Settlement, Jurisdiction Must Be Expressly Retained
This post has been viewed 2,887 times.
The overwhelming majority of civil cases are resolved through settlement. However, the battle may not be over once the parties agree to settle their disputes. In Infinite Security Solutions, LLC v. Karam Properties II, Ltd., the Supreme Court of Ohio found that the premature dismissal of a case divested the court of jurisdiction and left the parties without the ability to seek court intervention to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
Background Leading to Settlement
An Ohio trial court consolidated two related cases, filed as a result of a fire at an apartment complex. In the first case, Infinite Security Solutions, LLC, which provided security services at the apartment complex, sued Karam Properties seeking to recover on its contract for services. Karam, the property owner, countersued for negligence. In the second case, Karam’s insurer, Travelers, claimed that to the extent it had paid out $8.9 million under Karam’s insurance policy, it was subrogated to any claims Karam had against Infinite.
During a pretrial settlement conference, the parties orally agreed to settle and informed the trial court that they have resolved all issues except for how to apportion the settlement funds. However, prior to the parties fully resolving their outstanding issues and despite a local civil rule allowing thirty days to file an order of dismissal, a week later, the trial court dismissed the action on its own, without prejudice.
Read original articleTags:
