Court Opinion

ID: 9925617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 15:07:28.821481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:16.889449
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Leiby v. Am. Title Solutions, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-151.]

STATE OF OHIO                      )                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                   )ss:                      NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                   )

TODD LEIBY                                                   C.A. No.   30728

        Appellant

        v.                                                   APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                             ENTERED IN THE
AMERICAN TITLE SOLUTIONS, LLC                                AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT
                                                             COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellee                                             CASE No.   22-CV-01349

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: January 17, 2024

        HENSAL, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Todd Leiby appeals a judgment of the Akron Municipal Court. For the following

reasons, this Court vacates the judgment.

                                                        I.

        {¶2}     Mr. Leiby hired American Title Solutions, LLC to oversee the closing of the sale

of his house. According to Mr. Leiby, during the closing process, American Title debited around

$3,000 to pay for property taxes. The actual amount of taxes owed, however, was only around

$2,150. Mr. Leiby also alleged that American Title made him pay too much in real estate agent

commissions. He, therefore, filed a complaint against American Title, seeking to recover close to

$2,000 for the overpayments and for breach of contract.

        {¶3}     The case proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate. The magistrate found that the

reason for the discrepancy in the tax payment was because Mr. Leiby successfully challenged an

increase in the property tax for that year. The magistrate also found that American Title had
                                                2

complied with its contract with Mr. Leiby and had refunded him the tax overpayment. He further

found that, under the parties’ contract, Mr. Leiby would have to recover any other property tax

payment discrepancies from the buyer of the house, not American Title. Because Mr. Leiby had

already received everything American Title might have owed him, the magistrate recommended

that Mr. Leiby’s property tax overpayment claim be dismissed as moot. He also recommended

that the court find in favor of American Title on Mr. Leiby’s closing-commissions claim.

       {¶4}    The magistrate’s decision contained a notice that Mr. Leiby had 14 days to file

written objections with the Clerk of Court. According to Mr. Leiby, he attempted to file objections

during the 14-day period, but the courthouse was closed. He, therefore, sent his objections by

certified mail and received confirmation from the postal service that it delivered them to the

courthouse on the final day of the 14-day period. The Clerk’s officer did not timestamp Mr.

Leiby’s objections, however, for another 14 days. Upon review of the objections, the municipal

court found they were untimely based on the timestamp. The court adopted the magistrate’s

decision and entered judgment for American Title. Mr. Leiby has appealed, assigning four errors.

                                                II.

                               ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I & II

       THE JUDGE’S DECISION TO ORDER FOR DENYING APPELLANT’S
       OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION IS ONE OF PURE
       INCOMPETENCE,     BIAS, JUDICIAL    NEGLIGENCE,  JUDICIAL
       MISCONDUCT, AND IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S 14TH
       AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
       STATES OF AMERICA. THE ENTIRE CASE FROM THE BEGINNING HAS
       BEEN A SYSTEMATIC FAILURE ACROSS THE BOARD ON THE COURT’S
       SIDE OF THIS PROCESS.

       {¶5}    Mr. Leiby has combined his first and second assignments of error, although he

argues them separately in the body of his brief. In his first assignment of error, Mr. Leiby argues

that the municipal court incorrectly denied his objections as untimely filed. In his second
                                                  3

assignment of error, Mr. Leiby argues that the municipal court could not have conducted an

independent review of the magistrate’s decision because the magistrate was biased against him

and was confused by the complexity of the case. He also argues that the municipal court judge

was biased against him because he represented himself.

       {¶6}    Regarding whether Mr. Leiby timely filed his objections, Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(1)

provides that “[a] party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days

of the filing of the decision[.]” According to Mr. Leiby, he went to the courthouse two days before

the deadline, attempting to file his objections. He was turned away by police officers, who told

him that the courthouse was closed. He took a photograph of a sign that indicated the closure, then

left. He attempted to call the person whose contact information was on the sign, but there was no

answer, and no one returned the voicemail he left. He, therefore, mailed his objections to the court

by certified mail that same day. According to the post office’s tracking system, his objections

were delivered to the courthouse on the final day of the 14-day period, but for some reason were

not processed by the Clerk’s office until two weeks later.

       {¶7}    In his brief, Mr. Leiby cites several exhibits that he attempted to attach to his appeal.

This Court struck those exhibits, however, because they did not comply with our local rules. When

this Court reviews a decision of a trial court, its “review is limited to the record as it existed when

the trial court rendered judgment.” Lloyd v. Rogerson, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 18AP0024, 2019-

Ohio-2606, ¶ 17; see App.R. 9; see also App.R. 12(A)(1)(b).

       {¶8}    Mr. Leiby argues that the trial court failed to consider a note that he filed with his

objections that explained all the events that had transpired that prevented him from filing the

objections in person.     We note that the record contains a handwritten document that was

timestamped on the same day that Mr. Leiby’s objections were timestamped. In that document,
                                                  4

Mr. Leiby requested an extension of time for filing his objections, explaining that the courthouse

was closed when he attempted to file them in person and indicating that he had mailed his

objections that same day. The document does not have any attachments. Although timestamped

separately, the document was not docketed by the Clerk as a motion for extension of time. The

municipal court also did not address it in its decision.

        {¶9}     A court may grant a party a reasonable extension of time to file objections to a

magistrate’s decision “[f]or good cause shown[.]” Civ.R. 53(D)(5). In this case, it does not appear

that the municipal court considered Mr. Leiby’s motion for extension of time, possibly because

the clerk of court did not docket the motion. We, therefore, conclude that the municipal court’s

judgment must be vacated and this matter remanded for the municipal court to consider in the first

instance whether Mr. Leiby has shown good cause for seeking an extension of time to submit his

objections to the magistrate’s decision. Mr. Leiby’s first assignment of error is sustained.

        {¶10} Regarding the municipal court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision, Mr. Leiby

argues that it would have been impossible for the court to conduct an independent review of the

magistrate’s decision because the magistrate did not make correct findings of fact and was

confused by the legal issues presented. Considering our resolution of the first assignment of error,

we conclude that this argument is premature. Mr. Leiby’s second assignment of error is overruled

on that basis.

                               ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III & IV

        THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIAL MAGISTRATE IN HIS ORIGINAL DECISION
        WAS COMPLETELY CONFUSED BY THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS CASE,
        AND ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY THIS CONFUSION OF FACTS,
        EXHIBITS, INFORMATION, AND DATES OF THIS CASE, AND ERRORED
        AND INCORRECTLY APPLIED HIS INTERPRETATION TO THE SIGNED
        CONTRACTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE
        SUCH ACTIONS. NOR DID THE MAGISTRATE HAVE THE CORRECT
                                                  5

       FACTS WHICH WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN THE ERRONEOUS DECISION
       FOR THE APPELLEE.

       {¶11} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Leiby argues that the magistrate incorrectly

found that American Title repaid him his excess real estate taxes and, therefore, that he had already

received what he requested in his complaint. In his fourth assignment of error, Mr. Leiby argues

that the magistrate incorrectly found that American Title was merely an escrow agent and,

therefore, could not be liable for the overpayment of closing commissions. Because the resolution

of these assignments of error involves the same issue, this Court will address them together.

       {¶12} In an appeal from an order that adopted the decision of a magistrate, this Court

determines whether the trial court “abused its discretion in adopting the decision.” Citibank (South

Dakota) N.A. v. Masters, 9th Dist. Medina No. 07CA0073-M, 2008-Ohio-1323, ¶ 9. “Any claim

of trial court error must be based on the actions of the trial court, not on the magistrate’s findings

or proposed decision.” Id., quoting Mealey v. Mealey, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 95CA0093, 1996 WL

233491, *2 (May 8, 1996). Mr. Leiby’s third and fourth assignments of error focus only on the

actions of the magistrate, not the municipal court. Accordingly, they are overruled.

                                                 III.

       {¶13} Mr. Leiby’s first assignment of error is sustained. His second, third, and fourth

assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Akron Municipal Court is vacated, and

this matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.

                                                                                  Judgment vacated
                                                                                and cause remanded.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
                                                 6

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

Court, County of Summit, 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 Appellee.

                                                     JENNIFER HENSAL
                                                     FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, J.
CONCURS.

CARR, J.
CONCURRING IN PART, AND DISSENTING IN PART.

       {¶14} I concur in the majority’s resolution of the first and second assignments of error. I

respectfully dissent in regard to the third and fourth assignments of error as I would conclude that

they are moot and decline to address them.

APPEARANCES:

TODD LEIBY, pro se, Appellant.

JOEL D. CAVANAUGH, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.