[Cite as Blue Ribbon Meats, Inc. v. Fazio, 2015-Ohio-3146.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 102489

BLUE RIBBON MEATS, INC. 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 

vs. 

CHRISTOPHER FAZIO

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

 

Civil Appeal from the 

Berea Municipal Court 

Case No. 14 CVF 01655 

BEFORE: Stewart, J., McCormack, P.J., and Boyle, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 6, 2015 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Timothy N. Toma 

Toma & Associates, L.P.A., Inc. 

33977 Chardon Rd., Suite 100 

Willoughby Hills, OH 44094 

FOR APPELLEE

Christopher Fazio, pro se 

6525 Delores Blvd. 

Brookpark, OH 44142 
MELODY J. STEWART, J.: 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Blue Ribbon Meats, Inc. requested that this appeal be 

placed on this court’s accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. By 

doing so, it has agreed that we may render a decision in “brief and conclusionary form” 

consistent with App.R. 11.1(E). 

{¶2} Blue Ribbon complains that a default judgment in its favor against 

defendant-appellee Christopher Fazio on a claim under R.C. 2307.61(A)(1)(b)(ii) should 

have included an award of treble damages because the complaint was premised on a theft 

offense: Fazio personally guaranteed checks in payment for services rendered by Blue 

Ribbon, but those checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. The court ruled that 

R.C. 2307.61(A)(1)(b)(ii) “does not apply in this case in that the controversy here 

involves checks, which are specifically excluded in the statute.” Blue Ribbon argues 

that this ruling was erroneous. 

{¶3} We sustain the assignment of error. As applicable here, 

R.C. 2307.61(A)(1)(b)(ii) states that a property owner who brings a civil action pursuant 

to R.C. 2307.60 to recover damages from any person “who commits a theft offense” is 

entitled to liquidated damages in an amount: 
Three times the value of the property at the time it was willfully damaged or 

was the subject of a theft offense, irrespective of whether the property is 

recovered by way of replevin or otherwise, is destroyed or otherwise 

damaged, is modified or otherwise altered, or is resalable at its full market 

price. This division does not apply to a check, negotiable order of 

withdrawal, share draft, or other negotiable instrument that was returned or 

dishonored for insufficient funds by a financial institution if the check, 

negotiable order of withdrawal, share draft, or other negotiable instrument 

was presented by an individual borrower to a licensee under sections 

1321.35 to 1321.48 of the Revised Code for a loan transaction. 

 (Emphasis added.) 

{¶4} The check or negotiable instrument exclusion contained in R.C. 

2307.61(A)(1)(b)(ii) applies only when a check or other negotiable instrument is 

presented by an individual borrower to a licensee authorized to make short-term loans as 

defined by R.C. 1321.35 to 1321.48 and is returned or dishonored for insufficient funds 

— the intent being to protect those individuals obtaining short-term loans whose checks 

in payment of those loans bounce or are otherwise dishonored. There was no allegation 

or proof that Fazio was a short-term borrower (Fazio has not appeared in this action), so 

the exception in R.C. 2307.61(A)(1)(b)(ii) does not apply and did not bar Blue Ribbon’s 

request for treble damages. 

{¶5} Judgment reversed and remanded. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee its costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Berea 

Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE 

TIM McCORMACK, P.J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR