[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, O P I N I O N 

 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 

-2-

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 
Case No. 9-09-41 

-3-

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 
Case No. 9-09-41 

-4-

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. 
Case No. 9-09-41 

-5-

{¶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