 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Matyaszek12/29/2004
tlements on Behalf of Minors
{ } R.C. Section 2111.18 governs the settlements of minors. It provides: "When personal injury * damage or loss on account of personal injury * is caused to a ward [minor] by a wrongful act, neglect, or default that would entitle the ward [minor] to maintain an action and recover damages for the injury, damage, or loss, and when any ward is entitled to maintain an action for damages * the guardian of the estate of the ward may adjust and settle the claim with the advise, approval, and consent of the probate court * However, when it is proposed that the claim involved may be settled for ten thousand dollars or less, the court, upon application by any person whom the court may authorize to receive and receipt for the settlement, may authorize the settlement without the appointment of a guardian *"
{ } R.C. 2111.18 binds a minor to a settlement even if his injuries later turn out to be worse than anticipated. In re Guardianship of Kelley: Reeves v. Runyon (1961), 172 Ohio St. 177. However, any settlement made on behalf of a minor must have been negotiated by a party acting in good faithand in a proceeding that is not prejudicial to the minor. As the Ohio Supreme Court held in In re Guardianship of Kelley, 172 Ohio St. 177 at syllabus:
"In the absence of a showing of prejudicial error in the proceedings or of fraud or collusion on the part of those involved, a settlement of an injured minor's claim for damages by his guardian in conformity with the provisions of Section 10507-19, General Code (now, Section 2111.18, Revised Code), is valid and binding on the minor and may not be set aside." (Emphasis added.)
{ } In re Guardianship of Kelley establishes that either fraud orprejudicial error in the proceedings constitute a grounds to vacate. In In re Guardianship of Kelley, a young child was hit by a car and severely injured. Her mother settled the suit on her behalf. The minor later moved to reopen the case because the police report questioned liability and later that report proved to be false. The Court refused to reopen the case because the judge was fully apprised of all the facts connected with the settlement and there was no fraud or collusion.
Under In re Guardianship of Kelley, cited by both parties, either fraud or prejudicial procedural irregularities provided grounds to vacate.
{ } Likewise, in Brewer v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr. (Jan. 27, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 19068, this Court held:
"The safeguards of R.C. 2111.18 are designed to insure that any settlement or release of a child's claims is, in fact, in the best interests of the child. Consequently, only when a release " done in [the child's] behalf, honestly, fairly, upon proper investigation and with the approval of the appropriate tribunal, shall [a release] be held as binding upon them as similar actions taken by adults." Id., citing In re Guardianship of Kelley (1961), 172 Ohio St. 177, 182-83, quoting Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & Ry. Co. (1897), 168 U.S. 451, 466, 42 L.Ed. 539, 545. (Emphasis added.)
{ } This case also provides guidance regarding when a settlement is binding upon a minor. It requires fair dealing and protection of the child's best interest.
{ } Last, in Carpenter v. Pontius (1963), 119 Ohio App. 383, a 10-year old was seriously injured when she was struck by a car when crossing the road. Her mother had settled the case in the Probate Court on her behalf for $500.00. This amount was the largest for which an action could be settled on behalf of a minor without the appointment of a guardian ad litem. When the minor became of age, she moved to set aside the judgment on the grounds that th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|