[Cite as Abu-Arish v. Badawi, 2024-Ohio-350.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Waseem Abu-Arish, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 23AP-312

v. : (C.P.C. No. 19CV-8883)

Madhi Badawi et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Defendants-Appellees, :

Nationwide ATM, Inc., an Ohio :

Corporation,

:

Defendant-Appellant.

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on February 1, 2024 

On brief: Arenstein & Andersen Co., LPA, and Jessica L. 

Sohner, for appellee, Waseem Abu-Arish.

On brief: ALH Law Group, and Allison L. Harrison, for 

appellant. 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

LELAND, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Nationwide ATM, Inc. (“Nationwide ATM”), appeals

from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas adopting the magistrate’s 

decision and entering judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Waseem Abu-Arish, in the 

amount of $16,350 plus interest. 
No. 23AP-312 2

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Around November 2012, Abu-Arish and defendant-appellee, Madhi Badawi,

jointly invested funds to organize and operate a business entity called Automatic 

Transactions, Inc. In April 2014, Abu-Arish and Badawi founded Nationwide ATM. AbuArish claimed the ownership interest of Nationwide ATM was subsequently reallocated so 

that Abu-Arish and Badawi possessed equal ownership interests, with a small minority 

stake granted to a third party.

{¶ 3} By March 2016, Abu-Arish and Badawi had jointly founded two additional

businesses. In 2018, however, the professional and personal relationship between AbuArish and Badawi deteriorated to such a degree that Badawi sought to break ties with AbuArish altogether. On October 26, 2018, in his capacity as co-owner of Nationwide ATM, 

Badawi presented Abu-Arish with an agreement to terminate the business relationship 

between the two partners and establish a five-year non-compete agreement. Abu-Arish

also signed a document entitled “Receipt of Payments,” which stated the following:

As of the day of signing this Notice, I acknowledge and affirm 

that Nationwide ATM Inc. does not owe me any unpaid 

balances and I do not have any interest in the Company in any 

form.

I received the following payments:

1. Payment 1: $25,000.00

2. Payment 2: Satisfaction of loans in the amounts of

a. $5,500.00;

b. $3,000.00; and

c. $2,000.00.

3. Payment 3: $40,000.00

4. Checks to satisfy Payment 4: $33,000.00.

(Oct. 21, 2021 Mot. for Summ. Jgmt. Ex. D.)

{¶ 4} In order to compensate Abu-Arish’s interests in the jointly owned businesses, 

Abu-Arish agreed to accept a settlement payment of $108,500 from Nationwide ATM. 

Abu-Arish received the first three payments prior to executing the agreement, but the 

fourth payment’s structure partly consisted of postdated checks to be cashed after the date 

of the agreement. On the fourth payment, Abu-Arish received $16,650 in ATM coins and 
No. 23AP-312 3

successfully cashed checks. Abu-Arish asserts, however, Nationwide ATM and Badawi 

refused to honor $16,350 of the remaining postdated checks. 

{¶ 5} On November 5, 2019, Abu-Arish filed a complaint against Badawi, 

Nationwide ATM, and a third jointly owned company, Hilliard Farm Fresh, Inc.

(collectively “defendants”), alleging six causes of action: (1) breach of verbal contract; 

(2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) declaratory action; (5) declaratory 

judgment; and (6) promissory estoppel or detrimental reliance. On December 1, 2019,

defendants filed an answer and counterclaim for breach of contract.

{¶ 6} On October 21, 2021, defendants jointly filed a motion for summary 

judgment. On November 1, 2021, Abu-Arish filed a motion for partial summary judgment 

on his contract claim against defendants. In an order and entry dated March 11, 2022, the 

trial court denied Abu-Arish’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all but the declaratory action and declaratory 

judgment counts. Accordingly, the trial court’s order determined the case would proceed 

to trial on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 99.02 of the Franklin 

County Court of Common Pleas, the trial court referred the case to a magistrate for a bench 

trial.

{¶ 7} The magistrate presided over a bench trial on December 2, 2022, and filed a 

decision on December 21, 2022. In reference to the testimony of Badawi and his brother, 

the magistrate stated he “has rarely seen testimony so thoroughly discredited at trial.”

(Dec. 21, 2022 Mag.’s Decision at 6.) The magistrate concluded Badawi “issued the checks 

to pay [Abu-Arish] amounts owed under the [a]greement, and later stopped payment on 

the checks.” (Dec. 21, 2022 Mag.’s Decision at 7.) Accordingly, the magistrate found AbuArish was entitled to judgment against Nationwide ATM in the amount of $16,350 plus 

interest. No objections were filed to the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 8} On April 26, 2023, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, entering 

judgment in favor of Abu-Arish and against Nationwide ATM in the amount of $16,350 plus 

interest. Nationwide ATM timely appeals.
No. 23AP-312 4

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 9} Nationwide ATM presents the following two assignments of error for our 

review:

[I.] Magistrate acted outside the scope by questioning counsel 

on hypotheticals.

[II.] The decision was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence.

III. Analysis

{¶ 10} Two procedural issues impede our consideration of Nationwide ATM’s

appeal. First, Nationwide ATM failed to file written objections to the magistrate’s decision.

“[A]ny party that failed to object to the magistrate’s decision before the trial court cannot 

raise objections before the appellate court except to assert that plain error is evident in the 

trial court’s decision.” Davis v. Davis, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-664, 2018-Ohio-3180, ¶ 9. See

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim of plain error, a party may not appeal a trial 

court’s adoption of a magistrate’s factual finding or legal conclusion unless the party has 

first objected to that finding or conclusion in the trial court.”); Community Properties of 

Ohio Mgt. v. Smith, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-322, 2023-Ohio-540, ¶ 12.

{¶ 11} Second, Nationwide ATM failed to file a transcript of the bench trial

proceedings into the record. “A party that disagrees with a magistrate’s finding of fact must 

support an objection to the trial court with a transcript of all the [relevant] evidence 

submitted to the magistrate * * * and then ensure the transcript * * * is included in the 

appellate record for review.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Franklin Cty. Child. Servs. v. 

Copley, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-159, 2022-Ohio-3406, ¶ 12, quoting Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) and 

App.R. 9(B)(1). “The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the 

appellant. This is because the appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to 

matters in the record.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Lee v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family 

Servs., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-625, 2006-Ohio-6658, ¶ 10, quoting Dailey v. R & J 

Commercial Contracting, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1464, 2002-Ohio-4724, ¶ 17, quoting 

Fleisher v. Siffrin Residential Assn., Inc., 7th Dist. No. 01-CA-169, 2002-Ohio-3002, ¶ 25. 

“Absent a transcript, this court must presume the regularity of the proceedings below and 
No. 23AP-312 5

affirm the trial court’s decision.” Id., citing Edwards v. Cardwell, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-430, 

2005-Ohio-6758, ¶ 4-6.

{¶ 12} In its first assignment of error, Nationwide ATM argues the magistrate 

inappropriately asked counsel hypothetical questions during the bench trial. Nothing in

the limited record before us suggests the magistrate or the trial court relied upon or even 

considered any hypothetical scenario. Without a transcript of the bench trial proceedings, 

we are unable to review specific statements the magistrate purportedly made at trial. Thus, 

we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below. Lee at ¶ 10. It is therefore not 

possible for us to find error, let alone plain error, in the trial court’s adoption of the 

magistrate’s decision. Accordingly, we overrule Nationwide ATM’s first assignment of 

error.

{¶ 13} In its second assignment of error, Nationwide ATM argues the trial court’s 

decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. “The lack of a transcript * * *

precludes an assessment of whether the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions or 

if the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Reproductive Gynecology, 

Inc. v. Wu, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-141, 2023-Ohio-2557, ¶ 37. Again, without a transcript, we 

must presume the regularity of the proceedings below. Lee at ¶ 10. Nothing in the available

record impugning such a presumption, “in the absence of a transcript we are required to 

find that the trial court was correct.” Wu at ¶ 38, citing Terrell v. Morgan Furniture, 11th 

Dist. No. 2022-T-0033, 2022-Ohio-3981. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rahman, 10th 

Dist. No. 13AP-376, 2013-Ohio-5037, ¶ 25 (concluding that, “without a transcript, * * * we 

have nothing to pass upon, and, thus, we must presume the validity of the trial court’s 

weighing of the evidence presented and affirm”). Accordingly, we overrule Nationwide 

ATM’s second assignment of error.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 14} Having overruled Nationwide ATM’s two assignments of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Judgment affirmed. 

DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.