Dunn v. Landefeld , 2010 Ohio 2158 ( 2010 )

[Cite as Dunn v. Landefeld, 2010-Ohio-2158.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
NICOLE DUNN,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 9-09-41
v.
RONALD A. LANDEFELD, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Marion Municipal Court
Small Claims Division
Trial Court No. 09 CVI 1216
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 17, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Ronald A. Landefeld, Appellant
Nicole Dunn, Appellee
Case No. 9-09-41
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ronald A. Landefeld (“Landefeld”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Marion Municipal Court, Small Claims Division,
granting judgment to plaintiff-appellee Nicole B. Dunn (“Dunn”). For the reasons
set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} Landefeld rented an apartment to Chelsea Reyes (“Reyes”) and her
mother. The lease required the tenants to put the utilities in their own name.
Around December, Dunn moved into the apartment and replaced Reyes’ mother
on the lease. Landefeld notified Reyes and Dunn in January of 2009 that they had
three days to get the electricity put in their name, as required by the lease, or it
would be shut off. On January 7, 2009, the electricity was turned off and Dunn
left the premises. Additionally, Reyes and Dunn chose to permanently leave the
premises when they determined they lacked sufficient resources to pay the
monthly rent. After Reyes and Dunn had been gone a week, Landefeld and his
agent entered the apartment to clean out the trash. The lock on the front door was
changed, but not on the back door. Over the next two weeks Reyes moved several
items out of the home. Dunn also removed some items, but told Landefeld’s agent
that she would be back to get the rest of her things. When Dunn returned, she
found that Landefeld had allowed other people into the apartment to clean and
-2-
Case No. 9-09-41
paint it. Dunn alleged that several items of her belongings were missing from the
apartment at that time.
{¶3} On June 12, 2009, Dunn filed a claim against Landefeld in the Small
Claims Court of Marion County, alleging that she had lost property in the amount
of $3,000.00. A trial was held on the matter on July 20, 2009. On July 28, 2009,
the magistrate recommended that judgment be granted to Dunn in the amount of
$3,000.00. Landefeld filed objections to the magistrate’s recommendation on
August 3, 2009. On September 3, 2009, the trial court overruled the objections
and entered judgment in favor of Dunn for $3,000.00. Landefeld appeals from this
decision.
{¶4} Although Landefeld’s brief does not set forth a specific assignment
of error, a review of the brief indicates that Landefeld is arguing that the verdict is
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[T]he civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was
explained in C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d
279, 8 O.O.3d 261, 376 N.E.2d 578, syllabus (“Judgments
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”). We
have also recognized when reviewing a judgment under a
manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court has an
obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are
correct. Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio
St.3d 77,80-81, 10 OBR 408, 461 N.E.2d 1273. This presumption
arises because the trial judge had an opportunity “to view the
witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice
-3-
Case No. 9-09-41
inflections, and use these observations in weighing the
credibility of the proffered testimony.” Id. at 80, 10 OBR 408,
461 N.E.2d 1273. “A reviewing court should not reverse a
decision simply because it holds a different opinion concerning
the credibility of the witnesses and evidence submitted before
the trial court. A finding of an error in law is a legitimate
ground for reversal, but a difference of opinion on credibility of
witnesses and evidence is not.” Id. at 81, 10 OBR 408, 461
N.E.2d 1273.
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶24, 865 N.E.2d 1264. In
a civil matter, a judgment that is supported by some competent, credible evidence
must be affirmed. Id. at ¶26.
{¶5} A review of the record in this case indicates that Dunn testified that
when she went back to retrieve her belongings from the home, several items were
missing. She further testified as to the approximate value of the items. Dunn also
testified that several items she owned were just placed in the hallway of the
building like garbage by Landefeld’s agents and that Landefeld had allowed other
parties access to the apartment. Thus, some competent, credible evidence was
presented to the court from which the trial court could conclude that Landefeld
had removed items belonging to Dunn from the apartment as a method of
removing Dunn from the apartment without following the proper statutory
procedures. By doing so, Landefeld is responsible for the loss of those items.
The assignment of error is overruled.
-4-
Case No. 9-09-41
{¶6} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant, the judgment of
the Marion Municipal Court, Small Claims Division is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-5-