[Cite as Saini v. Golden, 2017-Ohio-204.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NOLAN R. SAINI : JUDGES:
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
KYLEE N. GOLDEN : Case No. 2016CA00121
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Canton Municipal
Court, Case No. 2015-CVF-4142
JUDGMENT: Reversed & Judgment Entered
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 17, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
NOLAN SAINI, Pro Se DANAMARIE K. PANNELLA
2802 Sunflower Loop South 1343 Sharon Copley Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262 P.O. Box 345
Sharon Center, OH 44274
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 2
Farmer, P.J.
{¶1} On July 2, 2015, appellant, Nolan Saini, filed a complaint in replevin against
appellee, Kylee Golden, in the Court of Common Pleas for Stark County, Ohio. By
judgment entry filed August 17, 2015, the case was transferred to the Canton Municipal
Court, whereupon appellant filed an amended complaint in replevin on August 27, 2015.
In the amended complaint, appellant alleged he purchased a dog ("Titan") from the
Department of Summit County Animal Control on October 25, 2013, and he was the sole
owner of the dog. Titan was registered to appellant in the state of Ohio and was
microchipped and registered to appellant in the state of California. Titan was now living
in North Canton, Ohio, with appellee. Appellant alleged the dog was abducted by
appellee without legal permission or privilege. Appellant sought return of the dog and
damages.
{¶2} On December 8, 2015, appellee filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging
appellant gifted Titan to appellee as an anniversary present, and she was the sole owner
of the dog. She and appellant had a personal relationship and she left the home they
shared in California in January 2015. She removed all of her personal property including
the dog. Appellee sought dismissal of the complaint and damages.
{¶3} A bench trial commenced on May 12, 2016. By judgment entry filed May
13, 2016, the trial court found in favor of appellant as being the owner of the dog, and
ordered appellee to return the dog to appellant or pay appellant $90.00 for the fair market
value of the dog.
{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 3
I
{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RULING IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR ON HIS
COMPLAINT IN REPLEVIN BUT FAILING TO ORDER THE RETURN OF PLAINTIFF'S
PROPERTY. THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY FROM 5-13-16."
I
{¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding damages i.e., value of the
dog, as an alternative to the return of the dog. We agree.
{¶7} On August 27, 2015, appellant filed an amended complaint in replevin
pursuant to R.C. 2737.03 which provides: "Any party to an action involving a claim for the
recovery of specific personal property, upon or at any time after commencement of the
action, may apply to the court by written motion for an order of possession of the property."
Appellant prayed for the following relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in
the amount of $15,000 dollars for the proximate and foreseeable loss of
Plaintiff's pet dog and the Defendant's conversion of said property.
Damages for time and money properly expended in pursuit of the converted
property. For punitive and exemplary damages. For the cost of this action
herein incurred. For the imminent and immediate return of Plaintiff's pet
dog "Titan." For any such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 4
{¶8} The gravamen of this appeal is whether appellant is entitled solely to the
return of the dog. In its judgment entry filed June 10, 2016, the trial court stated appellant
"prayed for relief for replevin and/or for damages for the loss of the dog," and found the
following:
Further the Court finds that it has the inherent authority to issue a
remedy appropriate for the circumstances. The Court found that the
appropriate remedy was for the Defendant to make Plaintiff whole, either by
return of the dog at issue or payment of the fair market value. The Court
further found that based on the pleadings and the evidence presented at
trial, the fair market value of the dog is $90.00.
IT IS ORDERED:
That judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant;
and
That Plaintiff is found to be the owner of the property at issue: to wit
a dog identified as "Titan": and
That Defendant took possession and care of the dog against the
ownership interest of the Plaintiff constituting conversion; and
That Defendant is ordered to return the dog or pay the fair market
value of the dog within ten days of this judgment entry, which fair market
value is determined to be $90.00; and
That should Defendant chose to make payment, payment may be
made through the Clerk of Courts for the fair market value of $90.00.
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 5
{¶9} In all respects, the trial court's decision finds for appellant, except it provided
for alternative relief. From our review of the prayer for relief and the trial court's decision,
we find the trial court stopped outside the requested prayer for relief. At the conclusion
of the trial, the trial court explained the following (T. at 11-12):
Both of you indicated a love for that dog. Hhhmmm. I'm not sure I
can joint - - I guess I could rule for joint property. I'm not sure how to handle
that any differently than ruling for you, Mr. Saini, so what I'm going to do is
I'm going to rule in your favor. But I'm going to fashion a remedy that you
don't like. And that remedy is going to be I'm going to give the defendant
the choice of returning the property or paying the fair market value of that
property. She has ten days within which to pay you ninety dollars for the
fair market value of that property and the cost of this action. I don't know
any other way to do it. From what I've seen today, she's certainly taken
care of that dog, she certainly evidence to ownership of that dog, and from
what I've seen from the relationship with that dog, um, there would be as
much harm from transferring the dog now, you know. The appellate court
needs to know what I'm thinking when I fashion this remedy, so while I'm
not persuaded by a best interest test, you need to understand why I'm
exercising the discretion I am in my - - in this way. That I do look at Alpha.
I do look at how dogs behave. I do look at how dogs connect. The evidence
that was presented to me indicates there's a strong connection. And I don't
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 6
see why I should exercise my discretion if the defendant is not willing, if
you're made whole, exercise my discretion to upset that balance.
{¶10} We find the trial court's decision to be in error. Appellant requested "the
imminent and immediate return" of the dog and damages associated with the return.
{¶11} Pursuant to App.R. 27, we reverse the trial court's decision and order
appellee to return the dog to appellant within thirty days of the date of this opinion and
accompanying judgment entry.
{¶12} The sole assignment of error is granted.
{¶13} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court of Stark County, Ohio is hereby
reversed.
By Farmer, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
SGF/sg 105