[Cite as United States of Am. v. Myers, 2016-Ohio-7817.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Appellant 

 v. 

DAVID A. MYERS, et al. 

 Appellees 

C.A. No. 15CA0105-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 14CIV1300 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: November 21, 2016 

 

SCHAFER, Judge. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, the United States of America acting through the Rural 

Development, United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), appeals the judgment of the 

Medina County Court of Common Pleas granting judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, 

David and Tracie Myers, on its foreclosure claim. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgment. 

I. 

{¶2} On December 30, 2002, David Myers executed a promissory note in the amount 

of $127,900.00 at an annual interest rate of 6.00% in order to purchase real estate situated in the 

village of Chippewa Lake, Ohio. On the same day, Myers executed a subsidy repayment 

agreement, which entitled the government to recoup the subsidy paid on Myers’ behalf in the 

event of foreclosure. Myers and his wife, Tracie, also signed a mortgage securing the 

promissory debt to the property. Myers ultimately defaulted on the promissory note in 2010. 
2 

 

{¶3} On December 5, 2014, the USDA filed a foreclosure action in the Medina County 

Court of Common Pleas against David and Tracie Myers,1

 as well as John Burke, the Medina 

County Treasurer.2

 The Myerses filed an answer denying the allegations set forth in the USDA’s 

complaint. 

{¶4} The matter ultimately proceeded to a bench trial, which was held on September 

10, 2015, before a magistrate. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the magistrate admitted all of 

the USDA’s proposed exhibits into evidence except for one. Specifically, the magistrate 

sustained the Myers’ objection as it pertained to the admissibility of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, a nonoriginal, uncertified copy of the purported mortgage document. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 

6 was not admitted into evidence. 

{¶5} On October 1, 2015, the magistrate issued a decision finding that the promissory 

note signed by Myers was in default. As such, the magistrate granted judgment in favor of the 

USDA and against Myers in the amount of $148,050.78 plus interest at the default rate of 6.00%, 

plus advances for taxes and insurance. However, because the mortgage was not admitted into 

evidence, the magistrate granted judgment in favor of the Myerses as to the USDA’s foreclosure 

claim. The USDA filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision on October 15, 2015, 

arguing that the magistrate erred by not admitting a copy of the mortgage into evidence. The 

trial court held a non-oral hearing on the USDA’s objection to the magistrate’s decision. On 

November 24, 2015, the trial court overruled the USDA’s objection and adopted the magistrate’s 

decision. 

 1

 The USDA included Tracie Myers in the lawsuit because she has a dower interest in the 

property. 

2

 The USDA included the Medina County Treasurer in the lawsuit, alleging that he “may 

have a claim for real estate taxes.” 
3 

 

{¶6} USDA filed this timely appeal, raising one assignment of error for our review. 

II. 

Assignment of Error 

The trial court erred when it failed to admit a copy of a mortgage into 

evidence, thus granting in favor of the Defendants as to the foreclosure of 

their mortgage. 

{¶7} In its sole assignment of error, the USDA argues that the trial court erred by not 

admitting the copy of the mortgage into evidence. We disagree. 

{¶8} A trial court possesses broad discretion with respect to the admission of evidence. 

State v. Ditzler, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 00CA007604, 2001 WL 298233, *2 (Mar. 28, 2001), citing 

State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 265 (1984). The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he 

admission of such evidence lies within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing 

court should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the absence of an abuse of discretion that has 

created material prejudice.” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008–Ohio–6266, ¶ 66, citing 

State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006–Ohio–2815, ¶ 62. An abuse of discretion is more 

than an error of judgment; it implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the 

abuse of discretion standard, we may not simply substitute our own judgment for that of the trial 

court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993). 

{¶9} In declining to admit Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 in the present case, the magistrate made 

a specific finding of fact determining that the USDA presented insufficient evidence to 

authenticate the copy of the mortgage document. In its objection to the magistrate’s opinion, the 

USDA argued that the magistrate’s refusal to admit this exhibit was error, as the copy of the 

mortgage should have been admitted into evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 902(8), which states that 
4 

 

“[d]ocuments accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided 

by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments” are selfauthenticating. 

{¶10} However, although a transcript was prepared for purposes of appeal, we are 

precluded from reviewing it in this case because the transcript was not filed with the trial court. 

Lewis v. Savoia, 9th Dist. Summit No. 17614, 1996 WL 490256, *2 (Aug. 28, 1996), citing State 

ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (1995). Additionally, this 

Court has held that “in the absence of a transcript of proceedings, affidavit, or additional 

evidentiary hearing, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to adopt a finding of fact made 

by a magistrate.” Crislip v. Crislip, 9th Dist. Medina No. 03CA0112-M, 2004-Ohio-3254, ¶ 6. 

“In such a case, the trial court may only examine the ultimate legal conclusions in light of the 

facts found by the magistrate.” Id. Where no transcript or affidavit is provided, appellate review 

of the trial court’s findings is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting 

the magistrate’s decision. Duncan at 730. 

{¶11} After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion by overruling the USDA’s objection and adopting the magistrate’s decision. 

In his decision, the magistrate specifically found that the USDA failed to authenticate the copy of 

the mortgage, as “there was no testimony [that] the [USDA’s] witness compared the copy [of the 

mortgage] to the original mortgage and the copy is not certified as correct by the county 

recorder.” Although the USDA filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision, it did not 

file a transcript of the proceedings with the trial court. As such, the trial court was obligated to 

adopt the magistrate’s factual findings. See Crislip at ¶ 6. We therefore conclude that the trial 

court did not err by overruling the USDA’s objection and adopting the magistrate’s decision. 
5 

 

{¶12} The USDA’s assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶13} With the USDA’s sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment 

of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JULIE A. SCHAFER 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, P. J. 

HENSAL, J. 

CONCUR. 
6 

 

APPEARANCES: 

REBECCA A. SMITH, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

BRUCE HALL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.