[Cite as Gardner v. Melling, 2017-Ohio-7809.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

PREBLE COUNTY 

MIKE GARDNER, et al., : 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, : CASE NO. CA2017-03-003 

 : O P I N I O N 

 - vs - 9/25/2017 

 : 

SCOTT MELLING, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CIVIL APPEAL FROM EATON MUNICIPAL COURT 

Case No. 2016 CVI 00496 

Mike Gardner and Randy Gardner, 2874 Niewoehner Road, Richmond, IN 47374, plaintiffsappellees, pro se 

Scott Melling, 8875 Crawfordsville-Campbellstown Road, New Paris, Ohio 45347, defendantappellant, pro se 

 RINGLAND, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Scott Melling, appeals from the decision of the Eaton 

Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, which granted judgment in favor of plaintiffsappellees, Mike and Randy Gardner. For the reasons discussed below we affirm the 

decision of the trial court. 

{¶ 2} Melling hired the Gardners to perform interior and exterior home improvements. 
Preble CA2017-03-003 

 - 2 - 

The Gardners renovated Melling's kitchen, which involved removing the existing cabinets and 

then installing new cabinets, a sink, countertops, and a backsplash. The Gardners also 

applied a sealant to an exterior ramp and stairs. Melling purchased the materials and the 

Gardners supplied the labor. Melling refused to pay the Gardners because he was 

unsatisfied with their work. 

{¶ 3} The Gardners sued Melling in small claims court for $1,200, which they alleged 

was the price Melling agreed to pay for their labor. Melling counterclaimed, alleging that the 

Gardners failed to exercise reasonable care in their work and failed to complete the work 

pursuant to their agreement. Melling asked for $6,000 in damages, which included costs to 

complete the project, for repairs, cleaning costs, and loss of use of his property. 

{¶ 4} The parties tried their case before a magistrate. The Gardners testified about 

the work they performed and submitted photographs depicting the renovated kitchen and the 

sealed exterior ramp and stairs. Melling admitted that the Gardners' work "looked okay" in 

the photographs. However, during his case, Melling argued that the Gardners deficiently 

performed nearly every aspect of the kitchen renovation, including failing to properly install 

the cabinets, kitchen sink, countertops, and backsplash. Melling further testified that the 

Gardners damaged a kitchen table, splattered sealant while performing the exterior work, and 

left the home in an untidy state. Melling submitted numerous photographs depicting some of 

these alleged issues. At the trial's conclusion, the magistrate traveled to Melling's home to 

view the work. 

{¶ 5} The magistrate issued a decision finding that the Gardners performed their 

work in a reasonably prudent manner given the age and condition of the house. The 

magistrate further concluded that Melling's complaints about the Gardners' work were 

insignificant. The magistrate recommended ordering judgment in favor of the Gardners and 

against Melling for $1,200. 
Preble CA2017-03-003 

 - 3 - 

{¶ 6} Melling moved the trial court for additional time to object to the magistrate's 

decision. The court extended Melling's time to object to January 17, 2017. On January 18, 

2017, at 12:09 a.m., Melling fax-filed his objections to the magistrate's decision. 

{¶ 7} In its decision, the trial court noted that Melling failed to timely file his objections 

and therefore the court would not consider the objections. The court then announced that it 

reviewed the magistrate's decision and found the magistrate properly determined the facts 

and applied the law. Accordingly, the court adopted the magistrate's decision in its entirety. 

Melling then appealed. 

{¶ 8} Melling failed to set forth any assignments of error in his appellate brief as 

required by App.R. 16(A)(3). Nonetheless, this court construes Melling's argument on appeal 

as a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence supporting the trial court's decision. 

{¶ 9} As noted, Melling failed to object to the magistrate's decision in the time limits 

set forth in Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), and as extended by the trial court.1 Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) 

provides: "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the 

court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically 

designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the 

party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)." 

Accordingly, Melling is limited to demonstrating plain error. 

{¶ 10} The plain error doctrine in civil cases applies only in the "extremely rare case 

involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial 

court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, 

thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Goldfuss v. 

 

1. Proceedings in small claims court are generally subject to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, except where 

R.C. Chapter 1925 sets forth inconsistent procedures. R.C. 1925.16; Faber v. Crowell, 12th Dist. Preble No. 

CA99-07-015, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 485, *4-6. 
Preble CA2017-03-003 

 - 4 - 

Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, syllabus (1997). The doctrine implicates errors that are 

"obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if 

permitted, would have a material adverse affect on the character and public confidence in 

judicial proceedings." Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982). There 

is no error here, plain or otherwise. The Gardners' testimony and photographs constituted 

some competent and credible evidence that supported the trial court's findings that the 

Gardners performed their work in a reasonably prudent manner and that Melling's complaints 

were insignificant. In addition, the magistrate personally viewed the Gardners' work at 

Melling's home. Finally, there was some indication in the record that some of Melling's 

photographs depicted conditions that the Gardners remedied. This is not one of those 

extremely rare cases where the outcome causes this court to question the proceedings. This 

court overrules Melling's assignment or error. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.