COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67519 SHELDON STARKE : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION RICHARD WEIGELT : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : JUNE 1, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-255268 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: SCOTT S. WELTMAN, ESQ. OWEN C. NEFF, ESQ. Weltman, Weinberg & Assoc. Snyder, Neff & Chamberlin Lakeside Place 1648 Hanna Building 323 Lakeside Avenue, West 1422 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Cleveland, OH 44115-2001 - 2 - O'DONNELL, J. Appellant, Richard Weigelt, appeals from a decision of the Common Pleas Court granting a $4013 summary judgment in favor of appellee, Sheldon Starke, Esq., for legal fees and asserts no fees are owed because no legal basis existed to file suit. On or about October 29, 1991, appellant signed a written fee letter agreeing to pay appellee $180 per hour for legal repre- sentation regarding a trust, assigning legal fees directly from the trust, warranting that "this is a necessary legal matter" and "no representations as to the outcome have been made." Appellant sought to invade the res of a trust which he, as Settlor, had created in 1989 naming his father, Orville Weigelt, as Trustee and beneficiary. The record reflects that appellee, in the course of his representation, had conferenced with his client, corresponded with counsel for the Trustee, prepared and filed a complaint in Common Pleas Court, answered interrogatories propounded to his client, interviewed witnesses, and made at least one court appearance. The case was eventually dismissed at appellant's request, and, thereafter, appellant refused to compensate counsel for legal services, which prompted appellee to institute this case to reduce the fee agreement to judgment. On June 3, 1994, the trial court granted summary judgment for appellee, but failed to specify the amount of the judgment. Appellant timely appealed and upon initial review, this court - 3 - ordered a limited remand for determination of the amount of the judgment. On remand, the trial court entered judgment in the sum of $4013 together with interest and the matter returned to our court. Appellant has assigned two errors for our consideration. I. For his first assignment of error appellant contends: IN GRANTING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, THE COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR AGAINST THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT REQUIRING A REVERSAL AND REMAND TO THE TRIAL COURT. Appellant urges that he does not owe appellee for legal services since the trust gave Orville Weigelt total discretion to disperse funds and specifically precluded legal action and, therefore, no legal basis exists for litigation. Appellee states in response that there was a basis for suit and that appellant is obligated to pay for legal services rendered in accordance with the fee agreement. Thus, the issue for our review is whether or not the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of appellee. Since this matter is presented on summary judgment, we begin by examining Civ.R. 56(C), which provides in pertinent part: *** Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, *** show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *** - 4 - The record below reveals that appellant signed a fee letter agreeing to pay appellee $180 per hour for representation in connection with matters relating to the trust. Appellee submitted an itemized fee statement for his services pursuant to that agreement which appellant rejected because the trust document gave sole discretion to the trustee to disperse funds and precluded judicial review. Appellant challenges the court's judgment on that basis, but has not disputed the computation or reasonableness of the total fee. The issue of a client's liability to an attorney pursuant to a contracted fee agreement was addressed in Skidmore & Assoc. Co. v. Southerland (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 177. The court stated in its headnote: 6. In general, when employment of attorney is under express, valid contract for agreed fee, either for specified amount or specified percentage of recovery, such contract is conclusive as to amount of such compensation. We conclude, on the basis of the foregoing, that appellant became obligated to compensate appellee for services performed in furtherance of efforts in connection with the requested legal representation and that appellee is entitled to be paid for his professional services. Since the computation of the fee is not disputed, no genuine issue of material fact exists, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. - 5 - II. For his second assignment of error appellant contends: AN ATTORNEY WHO HAS VIOLATED CIVIL RULE 11 IS SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE BY BOTH THE COURT WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURS AND IN THE COURT TO WHICH AN APPEAL IS TAKEN. Appellant argues that this court should sua sponte sanction appellee for initiating the trust action because to do so constituted frivolous conduct. This issue, however, was not raised with the trial court. It is axiomatic that matters never raised or ruled on in the trial court are not properly considered on appeal. Niemann v. Cooley (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 81. Since appellant did not raise this issue in the trial court, we will not address this assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ANN DYKE, J. JAMES M. PORTER, P.J., CONCUR JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .