[Cite as Equity Mgt. I, L.L.C. v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-2723.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY
EQUITY MANAGEMENT I, LLC, CASE NO. 2021-T-0009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Civil Appeal from the
-v- Girard Municipal Court
JAMES JOHNSON, et al.,
Trial Court No. 2020 CVG 00619
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: August 9, 2021
Judgment: Affirmed
Alden B. Chevlen, 5202 Nashua Drive, Youngstown, OH 44515 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
James Johnson, pro se, 2020 Crestwood Boulevard, Youngstown, OH 44505
(Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James Johnson, appeals from the Judgment Entries
of the Girard Municipal Court, issuing a writ of restitution and entering judgment in favor
of plaintiff-appellee, Equity Management I, LLC, in the amount of $3,290. For the
following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
{¶2} On September 15, 2020, Equity Management filed a Complaint for Forcible
Entry and Detainer and Damages against James and Valerie Johnson, seeking that the
Johnsons be ordered to vacate the residence managed by Equity as an agent for V.T.
Larney, Ltd. The Complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay rental fees, late
fees, and service charges for rent during July, August, and September 2020. Equity
raised a second count for rent owed and potential property damage.
{¶3} A hearing was held on the restitution of premises cause of action on October
6, 2020. Vincent Larney owns Equity Management and the Beverly Hills Drive residence
at which the defendants were tenants. When he acquired the property in December 2018,
the defendants were residing there and they entered an oral agreement to pay $750 per
month in rent, which they paid throughout 2019. Larney testified that, at the time of the
hearing, the defendants had not paid rent for three and a half months, rent for March and
May 2020 were only “half” payments, a check for June rent had bounced, July was paid,
and no rent was received in August. He refused to accept a rent payment in September
and a three-day notice to vacate was given on September 14.
{¶4} Larney testified that the house was in “terrible” condition when he bought it
and James requested repairs. Larney opined that James’ complaints began when he
was unable to pay rent. Larney informed the Johnsons that some repairs could not be
completed because the house needed “a whole big house rebuild” which would require
them vacating, and James responded that he would no longer be paying rent.
{¶5} James Johnson testified that he received a letter to vacate in March 2020
after his wife called Larney to fix the sink, and he believed this was “retaliatory.” He
testified that he paid April rent subtracting $250 spent to fix items in the home and paid
May, June and July in full, presenting copies of checks written for April, May and July
rent. He attempted to pay August by showing Larney the receipt for a sewer repair and
requested an amount to be deducted from his rent for the repair and cleanup. Larney
2
Case No. 2021-T-0009
responded by showing him a printout of late charges and no payment was ultimately
made.
{¶6} Following the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision finding that the
defendants were in default of the rental agreement and the court ordered a writ of
restitution to issue. The writ of restitution was issued on October 27, 2020.
{¶7} A hearing on the second cause of action was held on December 8, 2020.
Jade Larney, secretary at Equity Management, testified that at the time the Johnsons
vacated, they were five months in arrears and owed $3,550 in rent and $160 in late fees.
She explained that the payment for April rent, check 365, came back “stopped funds”
which resulted in a deficiency in April and the funds from this check were never received
by Equity. This led to the payment of May rent being credited toward April, June credited
to May, and July toward June. Payment for rent was requested for July, August,
September, and October, as well as November since Equity had not received keys or
been notified that the Johnsons left the residence until November 3. Equity expended
$600 disposing of property left behind including furniture and personal items and $250 for
damage to the lawn caused by the Johnsons’ moving truck being driven in the yard.
{¶8} James Johnson testified that check 365 had been “marked unusable
because * * * the machine couldn’t read it” and “his bank contacted Miss Larney and told
them to reissue it.” He asserted that the check was “reissued” and the funds came out of
his account. As to the dispute about repairs from the sewer issue, Johnson testified that
Larney did not agree to deduct the amount he requested and also would not accept their
rent check in September, although his wife presented it to Larney. James attempted to
pay October rent while in court on the first cause and Larney did not accept it. He testified
3
Case No. 2021-T-0009
that the items left behind belonged to prior residents and they did not damage the lawn.
{¶9} The magistrate issued a judgment in favor of Equity for $3,290. It ordered
rent in the amount of $3,015, which included $550 for July, $590 for August with a finding
deducting $160 for the sewer repair bill, $750 for September and October, and $375 for
November. It did not order late fees, noting that there was “no written lease agreement.”
It ordered $150 for disposal of items in the home, finding that “most items were present
before tenant moved in” and $125 for damage to the yard. The court adopted the decision
and entered judgment in favor of Equity on December 30, 2020.
{¶10} James Johnson timely appeals and raises the following assignments of
error:
{¶11} “[1.] The trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing this case to
continue once it knew the complaint had no merit. Appellee/plaintiff had the burden of
proof, not the other way around. The preponderance should be based on the more
convincing evidence.
{¶12} “[2.] The trial court abused it’s [sic] discretion and is guilty of implicit bias.
It allowed Appellee[’]s testimony to take precedence over Appellant[’]s testimony.
Appellee never presented any documentary evidence.
{¶13} “[3.] The trial court committed prejudicial error by granting Appellee
monetary award of $3[,]290.00. That award was not supported by reliable, probative, or
substantial evidence.
{¶14} “[4.] The trial court committed prejudicial error by dismissing Appellant[’]s
argument of retaliation. Can you refuse rent payments and then sue for default?”
{¶15} As an initial matter, in its reply brief, Equity argues that it was not properly
4
Case No. 2021-T-0009
served with a copy of appellant’s brief pursuant to App.R. 13(B), which requires that
“[c]opies of all documents filed by any party and not required by these rules to be served
by the clerk shall * * * be served by a party or person acting for the party on all other
parties to the appeal.” Equity asserts that “[i]f this failure rises to the seriousness of
dismissing this action, appell[ee] prays that this case be dismissed for lack of service.”
Equity received a copy of the brief after requesting one from the clerk, it was able to file
its appellee’s brief, and it did not move to dismiss in a separate motion to bring it to this
court’s attention prior to the completion of briefing and setting the case for oral argument.
We do not find that dismissal of the appeal is warranted or required under these
circumstances and will consider the merits of the appeal. See App.R. 3(A) (“[f]ailure of
an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not
affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the court of appeals
deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal”).
{¶16} Throughout his assignments of error, James takes issue with the court’s
weighing of the evidence. Generally, in a civil case, “[j]udgments supported by some
competent, credible evidence going to all 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 Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978), syllabus. In
the present matter, however, magistrate’s decisions were issued on each of the causes
of action which were subsequently adopted by the trial court and no objections were filed
by the defendants. “The Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the failure to file objections
to a magistrate’s decision results in the waiver of the right to assign its adoption by the
trial court as error on appeal: ‘Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as
5
Case No. 2021-T-0009
error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless
the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).’”
Karnofel v. Nye, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0126, 2016-Ohio-3406, ¶ 16, citing Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b)(iv). “In applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, reviewing courts
must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare
cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have
a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial
proceedings.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997).
{¶17} In the first assignment of error, James argues that there was a lack of
“documentary or real evidence” to support the award of past due rent and that, because
there was evidence that July rent was paid, there was no default and the complaint should
have been dismissed.
{¶18} While James’ assertion that rent was paid in the month of July is accurate,
as this issue was not disputed by Equity, testimony demonstrated this payment was
credited toward the month of June because of a deficiency that began when the April rent
check did not clear the bank due to an issue with the image of the check being “unusable.”
Although James testified that he believed this issue had been resolved and the check had
subsequently gone through, contrary testimony validated a conclusion that this issue with
the April rent was never resolved and Equity never received the funds from this check.
While James takes issue with the lack of “documentary evidence,” testimony from two
separate employees of Equity Management at the first and second cause hearing
regarding the non-payment of rent was presented and, if believed, supported the rent
6
Case No. 2021-T-0009
claim. The magistrate, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to evaluate witness
credibility and weigh the competing testimony. Blackwell v. Wynn, 11th Dist. Ashtabula
No. 2019-A-0048, 2020-Ohio-1438, ¶ 27.
{¶19} Further, presuming that payments were up to date through the month of
July, it would not warrant dismissal of the complaint but, rather, merely a finding that there
was no default or rent owed for the month of July. There was further testimony that the
August payment was not rendered. While James testified that he intended to make the
payment and tried to negotiate a lesser payment due to costs incurred to resolve the
sewer problem, James did not follow processes to avoid eviction while withholding the
rent. As this court has explained, “a tenant cannot refuse to place rent funds in escrow
based on claims that the landlord did not perform his duties,” such as completing repairs,
“and then prevail in a forcible entry and detainer action on the grounds that certain
conditions were not remedied by the landlord.” Shelton v. Huff, 11th Dist. Trumbull No.
2012-T-0101, 2014-Ohio-1344, ¶ 25 (recognizing that a party who withholds but does not
escrow rent risks eviction); R.C. 5321.07. James’ failure to tender the rent in full or take
other actions consistent with the law to properly withhold that rent resulted in a default;
Equity was not required to accept incomplete payment, nor did James ever submit at least
a partial payment for August.
{¶20} The first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶21} In the second assignment of error, James argues that the court
“automatically sided with the Appellee no matter what,” and Equity offered limited exhibits
while the Johnsons had “a plethora of marked Exhibits.”
7
Case No. 2021-T-0009
{¶22} There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the court unfairly
accepted or weighed only the testimony of the plaintiffs. The magistrate inquired of
witnesses from both sides to further understand the facts and the Johnsons were able to
fully present evidence and testimony to support their arguments. The magistrate did not
make any statements showing bias or prejudice against the Johnsons. The fact that the
court chose to believe the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses does not mean it unfairly
“sided” with the plaintiffs. Again, it was in the best position to determine the credibility of
the witness testimony. Further, it is evident the magistrate carefully considered all of the
evidence and testimony presented by both sides, given that it awarded Equity $1,270 less
than it had requested. To the extent that James points to alleged inconsistencies in
Vincent Larney’s testimony, this will be addressed in the third assignment of error.
{¶23} Contrary to James’ assertion, a party does not prevail in litigation by having
a larger number of exhibits. Equity was not required to present documentary evidence to
prove its claims that rent was unpaid; ample testimony demonstrated the rent
deficiencies. Further, the exhibits presented by the Johnsons generally were not
contradictory to the plaintiff’s testimony and assertions. There was no dispute that several
payments were made via the checks presented into evidence but, instead, the dispute
centered around whether they were used to pay a past rent deficiency. While records
documenting missed payments would have been beneficial to the trier of fact, James cites
no legal authority requiring such evidence to prevail on a claim for past due rent. While
not dispositive, we note Equity’s argument that it did produce documentary evidence “in
the form of a tenant ledger and pictures of damages to the premises.” Such ledger,
however, was not introduced as an exhibit, filed with this court, or otherwise made part of
8
Case No. 2021-T-0009
the record. It is unclear whether the magistrate reviewed it, as the only reference to this
document was Jade Larney’s statement: “My book says May was paid because when he
paid June that payment would go toward May.” We cannot say that this was “present[ed]
* * * to the Municipal Court” as the record does not clearly support such a contention.
Nonetheless, for the reasons outlined above, the ledger was not required as evidence to
prove the rent claims given the testimony provided.
{¶24} The second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶25} In the third assignment of error, James argues that the evidence did not
support the court’s award of damages, asserting that the evidence demonstrated he did
not owe past rent and pointing to inconsistencies in the testimony of Equity’s witnesses.
{¶26} In the present matter, there was testimony from Jade Larney, generally
supported by Vincent’s prior testimony, that April rent had not been paid, subsequent
months were credited toward that amount, August rent was unpaid because Johnson was
unable to successfully negotiate a decreased price for payment due to the plumbing
services he paid for and never tendered payment, September payment was not accepted,
and October payment was not made. Regardless of the reasons why payments in August
and September were not made, it does not follow that they were not owed. While James
testified that April rent was ultimately paid, this was not supported by documentary
evidence and was contradicted by Jade’s testimony. The choice to believe one witness
over another does not constitute error.
{¶27} James contends that there were inconsistencies discrediting the
aforementioned testimony, emphasizing that Vincent testified a few months of rent were
“half paid” while Jade testified that only one month was unpaid. Specifically, Vincent
9
Case No. 2021-T-0009
testified that March was not paid in full, $500 was paid in April, and May was “half” paid.
Both Vincent and Jade agreed that only $500 was paid for April, although that check
ultimately did not clear, and Jade did not discuss March payment. It appears there was
some inconsistency between their testimony as to the May payment, since the check
presented by the Johnsons demonstrated full payment and Jade testified full payment
was made. Jade’s testimony, which showed she reviewed the records in preparation for
the second cause hearing, served to clarify payment issues and fully established which
months were paid. There was no dispute that the full May payment was rendered and, in
fact, the court did not award any damages for May rent. Similarly, while there appeared
to be some confusion about which month’s check did not clear, this was subsequently
clarified by Jade and the exhibit showing the check with the notation that the check was
returned due to an “unusable image”; testimony indicated that this issue with the April
check led to the subsequent rent deficiencies. There is nothing to demonstrate that the
inconsistencies in testimony were deliberate attempts to deceive the court or led to an
incorrect award of damages following the hearing on the second cause of action.
{¶28} The third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶29} In the fourth assignment of error, James argues that the Johnsons were
evicted as a retaliatory action because they requested repairs and further asserts that
refusal to accept payment should not result in default.
{¶30} As explained above, this is not a case where default occurred merely due
to failure to accept rent. While there is no question rent was refused in September, both
July and August were found to be unpaid. James’ testimony that he was willing and tried
to pay August is belied by his refusal to tender a check when Larney would not negotiate
10
Case No. 2021-T-0009
a lesser amount of rent for repairs. Since there were multiple months unpaid, an action
was proper for forcible entry and detainer. As outlined in the first assignment of error,
had James wanted to withhold rent without facing eviction for nonpayment, he could have
placed funds in escrow. Shelton, 2014-Ohio-1344, at ¶ 25.
{¶31} As to the claim that Equity sought the Johnsons’ eviction as retaliation,
Vincent testified that he believed the complaints for repairs only occurred after the
Johnsons were unable to pay rent. As outlined above, there was a legitimate claim that
rent was unpaid justifying the action. “[W]here the landlord asserts a lawful reason for
the eviction and the tenant maintains that it was, in fact, retaliatory, it is for the finder of
fact to make an independent determination of the reasons for the landlord's action” and
“[t]he tenant is * * * required to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
landlord acted due to a retaliatory motive.” Davis v. Reed, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 68699
and 68700, 1996 WL 347814, *6 (June 20, 1996). Under these circumstances, given the
issues with rent payment, the court was entitled to reject the Johnsons’ assertion that the
eviction was based on retaliatory grounds.
{¶32} The fourth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶33} For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Girard Municipal Court,
issuing a writ of restitution and entering judgment in favor of Equity, are affirmed. Costs
to be taxed against appellant.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
concur.
11
Case No. 2021-T-0009