Brewer v. Brewer

Citation: 2019 Ohio 4674Docket: 108011

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; November 13, 2019; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In Brewer v. Brewer, 2019-Ohio-4674, the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the trial court's judgment denying defendants-appellants Nicole M. Brewer and Michelle Innocenzi's motion to show cause and for attorney fees, as well as their request to enforce an agreed judgment. The appeal originated from a complaint filed by plaintiff-appellee William A. Brewer in December 2013 against his mother, Marie Brewer (now deceased), his sister Michelle, and Michelle’s daughter Nicole regarding a property at 6349 Sylvia Drive, Brook Park, Ohio. 

William claimed he loaned his parents $60,000 in December 2003 to pay off their mortgage, with the understanding that he would be entitled to $60,000 plus interest from the property's sale as outlined in their wills. After his father's death in July 2005, his mother, Marie, became the sole owner of the property. William alleged that in September 2006, Marie agreed to bequeath him $80,000 from the property's sale, reflecting additional financial contributions he made.

However, in December 2011, Marie executed a warranty deed transferring the property to Nicole while reserving a life estate for herself, a move William claimed was fraudulent to evade repayment of the $80,000. Following extensive litigation, the trial court found the property transfer to be fraudulent concerning creditors, leading to a judgment awarding William $92,000 due to both the fraud and unjust enrichment from improvements he made to the property. The court ordered Nicole to reconvey the property to Mrs. Brewer, allowing her and Michelle to reside there under specific conditions, and mandated the property be listed for sale with proceeds distributed between William (70%) and Nicole (30%), ensuring Nicole received at least $27,000. The trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreed judgment.

In February 2015, Mrs. Brewer passed away, and a year later, Nicole filed a motion against William, claiming he failed to sell the property through a licensed realtor, instead selling it 'By Owner' and transferring it by quitclaim deed to WAB Rental Properties, L.L.C. for no consideration. Nicole alleged that this transfer was an attempt to avoid paying her a minimum of $27,000 from the sale proceeds, as mandated by a trial court order. William denied these claims and countered that Nicole had not fulfilled her obligations under the agreed judgment, including failing to pay property-related costs, maintain the property, and make necessary repairs, which forced him to incur significant expenses.

In July 2017, the trial court denied Nicole's motion, leading her to appeal, asserting that the court had erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing. During the appeal, it was revealed that William sold the property to an unrelated party for $118,000 without providing Nicole her share of the proceeds. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing and remanded the case for such a hearing.

Following the remand, the case was reassigned after Nicole and Michelle filed a motion to recuse, and an evidentiary hearing took place in August 2018. William testified about the property's poor condition and the repairs necessary before the sale, showing photographs of damage. He stated that he sold the property for $118,000, netting $114,000 after expenses. Michelle contested the extent of the damages, presenting evidence that contradicted William's claims. Ultimately, the trial court denied Nicole's motion to show cause and ruled that William was entitled to the full sale proceeds. Nicole and Michelle appealed, claiming the trial court miscalculated the net proceeds from the sale, exceeding the agreed deductions outlined in the November 2014 Agreed Order.

The trial court is accused of prejudicial error for not awarding Nicole and Michelle the stipulated minimum amount of $27,000 from the sale proceeds as outlined in the Agreed Order of November 17, 2014. They argue that William should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the judgment. Contempt proceedings are at the trial court's discretion and are not reversible unless there is an abuse of discretion, which is defined as a judgment that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Contempt is characterized as disobedience to a court order, which undermines the court's authority.

Settlement agreements, viewed as contracts, require offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent, and the law favors them to promote resolution and prevent litigation. In this case, the parties acknowledge the existence of a valid settlement agreement that assigns specific responsibilities to each party. Nicole and Michelle were responsible for the property's expenses during their occupancy, while William was required to list the property for sale within specified time frames and was prohibited from purchasing it himself. The trial court noted that William failed to follow these terms by not listing the property for sale in a timely manner or compensating Nicole and Michelle as required by the agreement.

The Court determined that Nicole and Michelle's actions undermined the consent judgment, necessitating a deviation from its terms, which hindered William's ability to list the property for sale and achieve anticipated profits. William's renovations were deemed essential for preparing the property for sale, resulting in a sale price of $118,000. He is entitled to the $92,000 judgment specified in the consent judgment, costs for necessary repairs totaling $22,745.25 (including $2,540.95 for materials and $20,204.30 for labor), unpaid taxes of $1,900, and closing costs of $1,354.75. After these deductions, the net proceeds amounted to $0.00, meaning Nicole and Michelle are not entitled to compensation from the sale. The trial court supported its decision with evidence of property damage caused by Nicole and Michelle, which required William to undertake extensive repairs. The court upheld its discretion to provide an equitable remedy due to the circumstances created by the parties' actions, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in not holding William in contempt. Both parties’ appeals were denied, and the order for execution of the judgment was mandated.