COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68540 WORLDWIDE DEVELOPMENT, INC. : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION MICHAEL ORLEY, DBA SUNLIGHT : CONSTRUCTION : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OCTOBER 26, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-215671 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: CHARLES T. RIEHL, ESQ. ROBERT J. BELINGER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. GREENBERG Belinger, Kaselak & Wolkin 1300 Terminal Tower 9224 Darrow Road 50 Public Square Twinsburg, OH 44087-0559 Cleveland, OH 44113 JEFFREY J. WILCOX, ESQ. 1040 Leader Bldg. 526 Superior Avenue, NE Cleveland, OH 44114 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Defendant-appellant, Michael Orley, et al. ("Orley") appeals from the trial court's ruling with respect to the value of the settlement agreement he entered into with plaintiff-appellee, Worldwide Development, Inc. ("Worldwide"). The trial court found that Orley and Worldwide entered into a binding settlement agreement on August 9, 1993. The settlement agreement required Orley to tender a deed to Worldwide for one parcel of land and a 180 day option to purchase a second parcel for $45,000 ("parcels"). Both parcels were located next to each other on Riverview Road in Brecksville, Ohio. The settlement agreement was never performed and Worldwide filed a motion to enforce the settlement on May 16, 1994. On June 3, 1994, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. The following facts were adduced from the hearing. George Csizek, President of Worldwide testified that he entered into a contract with Orley to purchase the parcels. A law suit developed from this contract which was eventually dismissed due to the parties entering into the above settlement agreement. Csizek stated that the parcels were to be "buildable" before he took ownership, meaning water and septic tanks were to be on the parcels. Csizek testified that the septic tanks would cost approximately $8,000. - 3 - Csizek testified that SMS Development has developed a plat of land in Brecksville which included the parcels. SMS is selling preconstruction lots for an average price of $145,000 per lot. Raymond Blacksmith, president of SMS Development testified that he was attempting to purchase land from Orley in Brecksville known as Emerald Woods Subdivision. This property includes the parcels. Blacksmith stated that SMS Development has valued the parcels at $60,000 a piece. This price includes the installation of sanitary sewers which may cost between $100,000 to $120,000. Michael Orley testified that he was not under the impression that he had to make improvements to the parcels before they were transferred to Csizek. Orley stated that when he negotiated the contract with SMS Development he valued the parcels at $10,000, noting that the land was undeveloped. Worldwide filed a post hearing brief on damages pursuant to the court's request. In its brief it attached an appraisal of the parcels from AJL Appraisal Company. AJL appraised the parcels at $86,500 per parcel. Therefore, Worldwide requested in damages $86,500 per parcel plus $3,500 in attorney fees. Orley also filed a post hearing brief on damages. In Orley's brief he stated that damages were between $10,000 to $12,000 based on a report from Valuation Service and Inspections. The trial court found that reasonable value of the settlement agreement was $90,000. Orley maintained that this award included the $3,500 in attorney fees that Worldwide requested in its post - 4 - hearing brief on damages. We note that the court's journal entry does not indicate that it awarded attorney fees. Therefore, we find Orley's contention that the trial court's award of $90,000 included attorney fees is without merit. Orley's sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT'S DETERMINATION AS TO THE VALUE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THESE PARTIES IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED AND REMANDED BECAUSE IT IS UNSUPPORTED BY, AND/OR GOES AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF, THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. Orley maintains that the trial court's determination of the value of the settlement agreement is clearly erroneous and should be modified or reversed because it is unsupported by the evidence. Specifically, Orley claims that the value given by the court to the settlement agreement is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Ohio law is clear that an appellate court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 610. Moreover, a judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all of the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279. In the present case, there was conflicting testimony as to the value of the parcels. Orley valued the parcels at $10,000. - 5 - Worldwide valued the parcels at $145,000 per parcel. SMS Development valued the parcels at $60,000 per parcel. AJL Appraisal valued the parcels at $86,500 per parcel. Valuation Service and Inspection valued the parcels between $10,000 and $12,000. We believe the parties valued the parcels at a minimum of $45,000 per parcel due to the fact the settlement agreement gave Worldwide the option to purchase the second parcel for $45,000. We surmise the trial court came to the conclusion the settlement agreement was worth $90,000 because the parties would have bought and sold the second parcel for $45,000. However, the reason the trial court came to the $90,000 conclusion is immaterial as long as it is supported by competent and credible evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we find the trial court's conclusion was supported by competent and credible evidence. In conclusion, we note that the trial court's journal entry does not indicate that it awarded attorney fees. Therefore, we find that Orley's contention that the trial court's award of $90,000 included attorney fees is without merit. Accordingly, Orley's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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. HARPER, J. NAHRA, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON 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, .