State ex rel. Perrine v. Grooms , 2013 Ohio 3299 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Perrine v. Grooms, 2013-Ohio-3299.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. SHARON : JUDGES:
PERRINE, ZONING INSPECTOR, :
PIKE TOWNSHIP : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 2012CA00155
:
LOUIS GROOMS :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No.
2006CV03879
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 15, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
CHARLES D. HALL III LOUIS C. GROOMS, PRO SE
Hall Law Firm 8860 Cleveland Ave. SE
610 Market Ave. N. Magnolia, OH 44643
Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00155 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Louis Grooms appeals from the July 19, 2012 judgment entry of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas finding him in contempt of court. Appellee is
the State of Ohio ex rel. Pike Township Zoning Inspector Sharon Perrine.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} The parties to this action have a long and litigious history. Appellee has
brought numerous statutory nuisance abatement and court enforcement actions against
appellant to require him to bring his property into compliance with the Pike Township
Zoning Resolution.
{¶3} Appellant owns three parcels of land in Pike Township, Stark County,
Ohio, within an area zoned B-2 Commercial Business District. Appellee’s repeated
complaints against appellant stem from the condition of his property, which contains
“scrap, trash, and debris” and effectively constitutes a junk or salvage yard, not a
permitted use in a B-2 Commercial Business District.
{¶4} This case originated with appellee’s complaint for injunction in 2006 and
went through a number of iterations of show-cause hearings and findings of contempt
until appellant was yet again ordered to abate nuisance conditions on February 27,
2012. Appellant did not comply; appellee abated the nuisance and filed another motion
to show cause, plus a request that the trial court visit the property.
{¶5} On June 22, 2012, the trial court notified the parties by order that it would
make an unannounced visit to the property, and did so while appellant was present.
{¶6} On July 5, 2012, an evidentiary hearing was held. The trial court
acknowledged he had visited appellant’s property. The evidentiary hearing included
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00155 3
testimony, exhibits, photographs, and arguments of counsel. On July 19, 2012, the trial
court found appellant in contempt of its prior orders and assessed a $1000 fine plus an
additional fine of $100 per day for every day of noncompliance in addition to costs
incurred by appellee to abate the nuisance conditions.
{¶7} Appellant now appeals from the July 19, 2012 judgment entry of the trial
court.
{¶8} Appellant raises three assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED
REVERSABLE (SIC) ERROR IN PLACING THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON
APPELLANT TO PROVE HE WAS NOT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.”
{¶10} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ITS
RULING IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE
SUBSTANTIAL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO ESTABLISH
THAT APPELLANT HAD PURGED HIMSELF OF THE ORIGINAL CONTEMPT AND
WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY OF THE PARTIES.”
{¶11} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FINDING
APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR NON-SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE
AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY OF THE PARTIES ENTERED ON MAY 23, 2007.”
ANALYSIS
{¶12} Appellant’s three assignments of error arise from the trial court’s findings
in light of the evidentiary hearing held on July 5, 2012, and will be addressed together.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00155 4
Appellant has not requested or filed a transcript of the July 5 hearing which resulted in
the judgment entry on appeal.
{¶13} In reviewing assigned error on appeal we are confined to the record that
was before the trial court as defined in App.R. 9(A). This rule provides that the record
on appeal consists of “[t]he original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court, the
transcript of proceedings, if any, including exhibits, and a certified copy of the docket
and journal entries prepared by the clerk of the trial court.”
{¶14} App.R. 9(B) also provides in part “ * * *[w]hen portions of the transcript
necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing
court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no
choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”
{¶15} In Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories the Ohio Supreme Court stated: “The
duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant. This is
necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to
matters in the record.” 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).
{¶16} As noted, appellant has not provided a transcript of the show cause
hearing which began on July 5, 2012. Without a transcript, we must presume the
regularity of the trial court’s proceeding on the motion. State v. Ellis, 5th Dist. No. 11-
COA-015, 2011-Ohio-5646, *2.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00155 5
CONCLUSION
{¶17} Appellant’s three assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J. and
Wise, P.J.
Baldwin, J., concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. JOHN W. WISE
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN
PAD:kgb