Feight v. Brooks

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 5205

Syllabus

The trial court erred by holding that a settlement agreement between appellants and two of the appellees was enforceable, because some of the material terms of the agreement were ambiguous despite the trial court's recognition of the ambiguity, the court did not resolve the threshold question of whether the parties to the agreement achieved a meeting of the minds. Regardless, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion by sustaining a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence that appellants sought to introduce in support of their claim of fraudulent inducement. Because the evidence in question did not exist at the time appellants executed the agreement, the evidence was irrelevant for the purpose of determining the parties' intentions with respect to the ambiguous provisions of the agreement. Judgment reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.