花都影视

Graham v. Boerger, 2nd District Case No. 2014-CA-17, 2015-Ohio-3261. The appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that a settlement agreement determining the debts and advancements to be charged against the residual shares of estate and trust beneficiaries precludes the payment of a beneficiary's caretaker claim raised after settlement. In relying upon the Eighth District's holding in Weisman v. Blaushild, 2008-Ohio-219, the appellate court concluded that the release's language was unambiguous and was intended to terminate all claims and end the protracted and hostile litigation between the siblings. The release's opening paragraph even stated that it brought resolution to the dispute to allow the estate and trust assets to be distributed so both the estate and the trust could be closed/terminated. Because any claim against estate assets would have affected each beneficiary's share directly, and the beneficiary could have raised the caretaking claim during settlement discussions, the appellate court held that the trial court did not err in interpreting the settlement agreement as releasing any and all claims that the parties had against the estate or the trust.