 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Matyaszek12/29/2004
e driver's agent induced her mother to agree to appear before the Probate Court of Stark County and sign applications and releases on the fraudulent representation that it was a mere formality in order to pay the outstanding medical bills. In fact, the papers settled the matter entirely on the minor's behalf. The mother had a fourth grade education and could not read because she had no glasses
{ } TheFifth District reversed the trial court's finding that there was no fraud in the inducement to settle. It permitted the minor to bring the action. The Court relied on the case In re Guardianship of Kelley, 172Ohio St. 177.
{ } These cases provide the proper guidance for this Court to determine whether relief from judgment is appropriate under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) in settlements involving minors. It allows for relief from judgment if there are fraud or procedural irregularities prejudicial to the minor's interest.
VII. Appellant's Entitlement to Relief from Judgment
{ } Appellant claims that there were sufficient procedural irregularities and a complete absence of full and fair disclosure, and substantial inequities so as to justify relief. He bases this claim on four alleged irregularities: (1) appellee's failure to disclose other payments to appellant's father in violation of Sup.R. 68(B); (2) the failure of appellee or its counsel to provide Dr. McLaughlin's letter to the Magistrate; (3) the failure to protect appellant's settlement by the manner in which his funds were disbursed in violation of the Magistrate's order; and (4) appellant's lack of meaningful representation at the hearing.
{ } This Court will consider each of appellant's grounds for relief below.
A. Appellee's Failure to Disclose Payments for Appellant's Medical Bills and Property Damage
{ } Appellant argues that appellee's failure to disclose payments to his father for his medical bills and property damage in the Application for Settlement submitted to the Magistrate violated Sup.R. 36. Sup.R. 36 requires disclosure of any additional consideration being paid to appellant's parents as a result of the accident causing injury to the minor. Magistrate Wertz also testified that the compensation being paid to the parents was important to him.
{ } Appellee argues that these items need not be disclosed and cannot constitute a ground for vacating the judgment. Appellee claims that R.C. 2111.18 takes precedence over Sup.R. 36 and does not require the disclosure of claims not belonging to appellant. R.C. 2111.18 only requires discretionary disclosure of claims by the parents solely on account of loss of services of the minor.
{ } Neither party disputes that claims for appellant's medical bills and property damage belong solely to appellant's parents. There is evidence in the record that the Magistrate was provided with the medical bills and was informed that these bills would be "handled separately and paid for." Consequently, the Magistrate may have only been unaware of the reimbursement of $12,143.25 for property damage.
{ } This Court finds that R.C. 2111.18 governs the disclosure requirements. Sup.R. 36 is only a rule of superintendence and does not create any rights. The Rules of Superintendence are "purely internal housekeeping rules which are of concern to the judges of the several courts but create no rights in individual ." State v. Gettys (1976), 49 Ohio App.2d 241, 243.
{ } R.C. 2111.18, however, does not conflict with Sup.R. 36. Therefore, Sup.R. 36 applies to the case at bar and requires the disclosure of additional consideration, including the amount of property damage and medical bills, in the application.
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.
|
|