[Cite as Marreez v. Jim Collins Auto Body, Inc., 2021-Ohio-4075.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

YEHIA MARREEZ, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 VS. 

JIM COLLINS AUTO BODY, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-210192 

TRIAL NO. 20CV-18967 

 O P I N I O N.

 

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 17, 2021 

Yehia M. Marreez, pro se, 

Becker & Cade, and Justin S. Becker, for Defendant-Appellee. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2 

BERGERON, Judge. 

{¶1} A minor fender-bender careened into a major collision after plaintiffappellant Yehia Marreez dropped his car off for repair with defendant-appellee Jim 

Collins Auto Body (“Collins Auto”). At the insurance company’s request, Collins 

Auto performed an initial inspection of the vehicle, an exercise that cost under $200. 

The insurance company later backtracked, concluding that Mr. Marreez’s policy 

would not cover the damage, leaving Collins Auto with unpaid labor charges for the 

initial inspection. The trial court decided Mr. Marreez should have paid the 

inspection bill and granted Collins Auto a garageman’s lien on the vehicle. But 

Collins Auto failed to inform Mr. Marreez of his right to an estimate as required by 

the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act (“OCSPA”), a violation which negated its right 

to a possessory lien over the vehicle. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s 

judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Mr. Marreez. 

I. 

{¶2} After his car sustained front end damage during an automobile 

accident, Mr. Marreez submitted pictures and information to his insurance company, 

Allstate. Allstate provided Mr. Marreez with a preliminary estimate of $470 and 

instructed him to take the vehicle and the estimate to a body shop for repair. Mr. 

Marreez chose Collins Auto based on a previous positive experience with the 

mechanic there. During the drop-off encounter, Collins Auto offered to interface 

directly with Allstate on Mr. Marreez’s behalf. At Allstate’s behest, Collins Auto “tore 

down” the vehicle’s front bumper to check for hidden damage and provided a 

supplemental estimate of $3,862.75 to Allstate. Perhaps suffering from sticker shock 

from this nearly ten-fold increase in the estimate, Allstate subsequently determined 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

3 

that the type of policy held by Mr. Marreez did not actually cover the damage at 

issue. It is undisputed that Collins Auto provided no up-front estimate to Mr. 

Marreez. 

{¶3} The owner, Jim Collins, testified that this was an unusual situation in 

that Allstate mistakenly provided an initial estimate, leading both parties to believe 

the insurance company would foot the bill—including any fees for inspecting the 

vehicle. When the insurance company balked, Mr. Collins informed Mr. Marreez 

that he would need to cover the $160 inspection bill upon retrieval of the car. Mr. 

Marreez refused, believing he should not pay for Allstate’s blunder, which 

precipitated jousting with Collins Auto over who bore responsibility for the charge. 

With no resolution in sight, Collins Auto claimed a right to retain the vehicle for the 

unpaid charges by virtue of a common law garageman’s lien. After a trial before a 

magistrate, the trial court decided Collins Auto validly obtained a lien on the unpaid 

charges and denied Mr. Marreez’s complaint for replevin. Mr. Marreez now appeals 

pro se raising six assignments of error. We overrule five of the six assignments of 

error for failure to advance a legal argument, but sustain his second assignment of 

error as it pertains to violations of the OCSPA. 

II. 

{¶4} Pro se appellants such as Mr. Marreez are “presumed to have 

knowledge of the law and legal procedures” and will be “held to the same standard as 

litigants who are represented by counsel.” State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio 

St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10. In the interest of justice, we will 

consider all cognizable contentions presented but will not create an argument if a pro 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

4 

se litigant fails to develop one. Fontain v. Sandhu, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200011, 

2021-Ohio-2750, ¶ 15. Under the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Marreez 

must support each assignment of error with citations to the authorities, statutes, and 

parts of the record relied upon. App.R. 16(A)(7) (“The appellant shall include in its 

brief * * * [a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to 

each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the 

contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on 

which appellant relies.”). 

{¶5} Mr. Marreez’s first, third, and fourth assignments of error fail to steer 

us to the parts of the record in dispute or provide any citations to applicable Ohio 

authority. His fifth assignment of error insists that the trial court erred in granting a 

motion for summary judgment, but no motions for summary judgment were 

tendered or granted in this case. His sixth assignment of error appears to advance a 

claim for damages for transportation costs incurred while he was without his vehicle, 

but he never presented this cause of action to the trial court, which precludes us from 

considering it on appeal. Because Mr. Marreez failed to develop an argument under 

the foregoing assignments of error, we are inclined to disregard them. App.R. 

12(A)(2) (“The court may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the 

party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of 

error is based or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required 

under App.R. 16(A).”). To the extent that an argument is presented, we overrule all 

of these assignments of error. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

5 

{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Marreez challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence that led to the imposition of a common law lien on his 

vehicle. According to Mr. Marreez, Collins Auto violated the OCSPA when it failed to 

provide a written estimate of the repair cost beforehand. In his view, because this 

type of violation constitutes a deceptive consumer practice under Ohio law, it 

prevents Collins Auto from asserting a possessory lien over the vehicle. Collins Auto 

disputes this proposition, insisting that Mr. Marreez did not allege violations of the 

OCSPA in his complaint or before the trial court, and it characterizes those matters 

as waived. But Mr. Marreez’s complaint for replevin specifically alleged a “Violation 

of Consumer Sales Practice Act” and also indicated “I do not have any oral or written 

contract with him to charge me for anything.” Indeed, the entire thrust of his 

argument during the trial was that he never authorized Collins Auto to perform any 

repair or service and that he received no notice that he would be charged anything, as 

required by the OCSPA. Having found the issue properly preserved for appeal, we 

turn now to the substance of the matter at hand. 

{¶7} As a threshold matter, however, Mr. Marreez failed to lodge objections 

to the magistrate’s decision, waiving all but plain error. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) 

(“Except 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 * * * unless the party has 

objected to that finding or conclusion.”). Plain error includes “ ‘error[s] of law or 

other defect[s] evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision’ ” that would prevent 

adopting the magistrate’s decision, regardless of whether Mr. Marreez objected to 

the finding or conclusion. See Mott v. Morgan, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 21 CAG 02 

0011, 2021-Ohio-3026, ¶ 20, quoting Civ.R. 53 (D)(4)(c). We acknowledge that 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

6 

appellate courts must limit finding plain error in civil cases to “those extremely rare 

cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest 

miscarriage of justice.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121, 679 N.E.2d 

1099 (1997). This case presents such a situation. 

{¶8} The OCSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts by suppliers in consumer 

transactions. R.C. 1345.02(A) (“No supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act 

or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive 

act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or 

after the transaction.”). The Ohio Attorney General enjoys broad power to 

promulgate substantive rules delineating acts or practices that violate the OCSPA. 

R.C. 1345.05(B)(2). One such rule issued by the Attorney General, Ohio 

Administrative Code 109:4-3-13, describes certain conduct that constitutes a 

deceptive act or practice when the supplier and consumer deal with each other face 

to face at the supplier’s business. In such a transaction, and where the anticipated 

cost exceeds $50, it is a deceptive act for the supplier to service a motor vehicle 

without providing a form notifying the consumer of his right to an estimate. Ohio 

Adm.Code 109:4-3-13(A)(1) (A deceptive act occurs when, “prior to the 

commencement of the repair or service,” a supplier fails to provide the consumer 

with a form which indicates “the anticipated cost of the repair or service.”). The form 

must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that the consumer has the right to either a 

written estimate, an oral estimate, or no estimate. Id. The rule emphasizes that “any 

failure to comply with the regulations is deemed a ‘deceptive act or practice.’ ” 

Ottney v. Al Sobb’s Auto & Truck Frame Serv., Inc., 2018-Ohio-4054, 112 N.E.3d 

927, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.). 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

7 

{¶9} In Ohio, a mechanic who receives a motor vehicle from a consumer for 

the purpose of repairing it has a common law lien on the vehicle for the reasonable 

value of the labor and materials. See 66 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Liens, Section 8 

(2021); see also Justice v. Bussard, 65 Ohio Law Abs. 461, 114 N.E.2d 305, 308 (M.C. 

1953) (“A common-law lien is the right of a person to retain that which is in his 

possession, but belonging to another, until certain demands—usually payment for 

services and repairs—are paid by the owner.” * * * “It has been consistently 

recognized in Ohio even though the legislature has never created such a lien.”). 

While the General Assembly codified most artisan liens under R.C. 1333.41, that 

statute specifically excludes motor vehicles, which remain governed by the common 

law. R.C. 1333.41(E); Leesburg Fed. Sav. Bank v. McMurray, 12th Dist. Franklin 

No. CA2012-02-002, 2012-Ohio-5435, ¶ 10 (“[A]rtisan’s liens over motor vehicles 

remain governed by the common law.”). For this type of common law garageman’s 

lien to arise, the service the mechanic performs “must be to maintain or enhance the 

value of the personal property.” Shearer v. Bill Garlic Motors, Inc., 59 Ohio App.2d 

320, 322, 394 N.E.2d 1014 (6th Dist.1977). Thus, a mechanic in Ohio “whose labor 

and skill impart additional value and improvement to an automobile has a common 

law lien upon the automobile until his reasonable charges are paid * * * [and] may 

lawfully retain possession of the automobile until those charges are paid.” Murphy 

v. Koepke Motors, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 47257, 1984 WL 5013, *5 (Mar. 29, 1984). 

{¶10} But when a mechanic violates the OCSPA by committing a deceptive or 

unfair act, Ohio courts recognize that “such violations can act to negate the 

mechanic’s right to retain a possessory lien over the vehicle.” State v. Pawloski, 188 

Ohio App.3d 267, 2010-Ohio-3504, 935 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), citing Mannix v. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

8 

DCB Serv., Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19910, 2004-Ohio-6672, ¶ 29; see State v. 

Ames, 182 Ohio App.3d 736, 2009-Ohio-3509, 914 N.E.2d 1118, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.) 

(finding a common-law garageman’s possessory lien invalid where mechanic failed to 

provide an estimate or form prior to making repairs). As applied here, Collins Auto 

committed a deceptive act when it failed to provide Mr. Marreez with the required 

OCSPA form during their initial contact informing him of the right to an estimate for 

any service or repair. As a result, Collins Auto cannot obtain a lien on the vehicle. 

{¶11} The fact that Collins Auto incorrectly assumed Allstate would pay the 

inspection bill is no defense. Mr. Collins testified he does not consider initial 

estimates falling below a customer’s deductible to be insurance claims because the 

customer pays the entire bill before insurance kicks in anything. At the time of dropoff, both parties believed Mr. Marreez’s deductible to be $500. The original Allstate 

estimate was $470, below Mr. Marreez’s deductible, so Mr. Collins had no initial 

reason to assume Allstate would pay—unless, of course, he anticipated that his 

estimate would exceed Allstate’s. Mr. Collins took a calculated risk and lost when 

Allstate realized its mistake regarding Mr. Marreez’s policy. But that gamble does 

not nullify Collins Auto’s obligation to provide Mr. Marreez with an initial estimate 

before working on the car. And allowing Collins Auto to service Mr. Marreez’s car 

and then decide after the fact what price, if any, to charge him is antithetical to the 

purpose and structure of the OCSPA. Because that type of conduct constitutes a 

deceptive practice, it prevents Collins Auto from obtaining a superior possessory 

right in the vehicle over Mr. Marreez. We accordingly sustain Mr. Marreez’s second 

assignment of error. 

* * * 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

9 

{¶12} In light of the foregoing analysis, we reverse the trial court’s judgment 

and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Mr. Marreez on his OCSPA claim. 

 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

MYERS, P. J., and CROUSE, J., concur. 

Please note: 

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion