Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HAMILTON COUNTY
PLATINUM RELA ESTATE : Case No: A1703642
HOLDINGS, INC.
: Judge Christopher Wagner
Plaintiff,
v.
ENTRY GRANTING
ANGELO SLABAKIS : PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
VACATE THE SATISFACTION
Defendant. : OF JUDGMENT
This matter came before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff, Platinum Real Estate
Holdings, Inc. for a motion to vacate the satisfaction of judgment entered by this Court on August
7, 2018. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. A hearing was held on March 20, 2023.
I. Relevant Facts and Procedural Posture
This Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of
$1,323,889.32 together with interest. The judgment reflects the deficiency owed after a
foreclosure of a commercial building. Defendant sought relief from the judgment and ultimately
filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2018. The appellate briefs were extended due to settlement
negotiations. The parties ultimately reached a settlement of the judgment. The parties entered a
mutual release agreement.
Pursuant to the release agreement, the Court entered a satisfaction of judgment on August
7, 2018. Based on the satisfaction, Defendant moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, which was
granted on August 13, 2018. Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed his own action in New York,
claiming that he was to be paid a commission from the sale of the property and that Plaintiff should
forgive the judgment.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023
Plaintiff's filed this post-judgment motion arguing that the Satisfaction of the Judgment
was a mutual general release and he should not retain the benefits of the release agreement while
repudiating the mutual covenants of the release. It seeks this Court to vacate the satisfaction.
Defendant argues he is not repudiating the release agreement he is merely arguing the release does
not apply to the New York case or the New York Defendants.
II. Legal Standard
The First District has noted that where a notice of satisfaction of judgment filed by a party
has become inextricably intertwined with a judgment, it may only be modified by a motion that
60(B)."
satisfies the requirements of Civ.R. Carlson v. City of Cincinnati, 2022-Ohio-1513, ¶ 25.
(13t
Dist. 2022).
"Under Civ.R. 60(B), a final judgment may be vacated or modified by reason of
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) fraud,
misrepresentation or misconduct, (4) satisfaction, release or discharge of the judgment or (5) any
60(B)."
other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Civ.R. Whitaker v. Associated Credit
Servs., Inc., 946 F.2d 1222, 1224 (6th Cir.1991), citing 11 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 2858 (1973) (applying similarly worded
(1St
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)). Carlson, supra, 2022-Ohio-1513, ¶30 Dist. 2022).
"To prevail on a motion to relieve a party from a final judgment, the movant must
demonstrate that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2)
the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and
(3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ. R. 60
(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or
taken."
Id. at ¶ 31(internal citation omitted).
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023
"Under Civ.R. 60(B)(4), relief from judgment may be granted when "the judgment has
been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed
or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application. Civ.R. 60(B)(4) was designed to provide relief to those who have been prospectively
control."
subjected to circumstances which they had no opportunity to foresee or Mullaji v.
(9th
Mollagee, 2023-Ohio-246, ¶ 12 Dist. 2023) (internal citations omitted).
IIL Analysis
The parties cannot seem to agree on which legal standard to follow in this situation, but the
First District in Carlson, supra, used the 60(B) standard when setting aside a satisfaction of
judgment. Plaintiff is correct that the one year time limitation is used for Civ. R. 60(B)(1-3), but
in this case, Civ. 60(B)(4) is more appropriate.
Mr. Slabakis, despite agreeing to a release, wants to relitigate the case in a different forum.
Reinstating the judgment may allow it to be asserted as a defense to the claims in New York. That
fits the criteria that the satisfaction of the judgment is "no longer equitable that
application."
the judgment should have prospective (See Civ. R. 60(B)(4). Normally when a party
agrees to a mutual release of claims they do so in good faith that the matter is resolved to mutual
satisfaction. To relitigate the agreement less than five months later vitiates the consideration given
for the satisfaction. Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to assert its defenses of set-off and
recoupment. Because Plaintiff cannot maintain the benefit at the heart of the Release Agreement,
it is appropriate that it should be vacated.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023
IV. Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion to vacate the Satisfaction of Judgment. This Court believes
this is a final and appealable order therefore there is no just cause for delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Christo her agner
IN 2
Date
4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY PLATINUM RELA ESTATE : Case No: A1703642 HOLDINGS, INC. : Judge Christopher Wagner Plaintiff, v. ENTRY GRANTING ANGELO SLABAKIS : PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE THE SATISFACTION Defendant. : OF JUDGMENT This matter came before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff, Platinum Real Estate Holdings, Inc. for a motion to vacate the satisfaction of judgment entered by this Court on August 7, 2018. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. A hearing was held on March 20, 2023. I. Relevant Facts and Procedural Posture This Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $1,323,889.32 together with interest. The judgment reflects the deficiency owed after a foreclosure of a commercial building. Defendant sought relief from the judgment and ultimately filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2018. The appellate briefs were extended due to settlement negotiations. The parties ultimately reached a settlement of the judgment. The parties entered a mutual release agreement. Pursuant to the release agreement, the Court entered a satisfaction of judgment on August 7, 2018. Based on the satisfaction, Defendant moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, which was granted on August 13, 2018. Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed his own action in New York, claiming that he was to be paid a commission from the sale of the property and that Plaintiff should forgive the judgment. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 Plaintiff's filed this post-judgment motion arguing that the Satisfaction of the Judgment was a mutual general release and he should not retain the benefits of the release agreement while repudiating the mutual covenants of the release. It seeks this Court to vacate the satisfaction. Defendant argues he is not repudiating the release agreement he is merely arguing the release does not apply to the New York case or the New York Defendants. II. Legal Standard The First District has noted that where a notice of satisfaction of judgment filed by a party has become inextricably intertwined with a judgment, it may only be modified by a motion that 60(B)." satisfies the requirements of Civ.R. Carlson v. City of Cincinnati, 2022-Ohio-1513, ¶ 25. (13t Dist. 2022). "Under Civ.R. 60(B), a final judgment may be vacated or modified by reason of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct, (4) satisfaction, release or discharge of the judgment or (5) any 60(B)." other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Civ.R. Whitaker v. Associated Credit Servs., Inc., 946 F.2d 1222, 1224 (6th Cir.1991), citing 11 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 2858 (1973) (applying similarly worded (1St Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)). Carlson, supra, 2022-Ohio-1513, ¶30 Dist. 2022). "To prevail on a motion to relieve a party from a final judgment, the movant must demonstrate that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ. R. 60 (B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken." Id. at ¶ 31(internal citation omitted). 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 "Under Civ.R. 60(B)(4), relief from judgment may be granted when "the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application. Civ.R. 60(B)(4) was designed to provide relief to those who have been prospectively control." subjected to circumstances which they had no opportunity to foresee or Mullaji v. (9th Mollagee, 2023-Ohio-246, ¶ 12 Dist. 2023) (internal citations omitted). IIL Analysis The parties cannot seem to agree on which legal standard to follow in this situation, but the First District in Carlson, supra, used the 60(B) standard when setting aside a satisfaction of judgment. Plaintiff is correct that the one year time limitation is used for Civ. R. 60(B)(1-3), but in this case, Civ. 60(B)(4) is more appropriate. Mr. Slabakis, despite agreeing to a release, wants to relitigate the case in a different forum. Reinstating the judgment may allow it to be asserted as a defense to the claims in New York. That fits the criteria that the satisfaction of the judgment is "no longer equitable that application." the judgment should have prospective (See Civ. R. 60(B)(4). Normally when a party agrees to a mutual release of claims they do so in good faith that the matter is resolved to mutual satisfaction. To relitigate the agreement less than five months later vitiates the consideration given for the satisfaction. Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to assert its defenses of set-off and recoupment. Because Plaintiff cannot maintain the benefit at the heart of the Release Agreement, it is appropriate that it should be vacated. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 652036/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 IV. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the motion to vacate the Satisfaction of Judgment. This Court believes this is a final and appealable order therefore there is no just cause for delay. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Christo her agner IN 2 Date 4