Court Opinion

ID: 9401325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 19:09:41.832142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.083061
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Paldino v. Johnson, 2023-Ohio-1947.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                TRUMBULL COUNTY

MATTHEW PALDINO,                                       CASE NO. 2022-T-0116

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                       Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                         Court of Common Pleas

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, et al.,
                                                       Trial Court No. 2018 CV 02237
                 Defendants-Appellees.

                                                OPINION

                                       Decided: June 12, 2023
                                        Judgment: Affirmed

Charles E. McFarland, 338 Jackson Road, New Castle, KY 40050 (For Plaintiff-
Appellant).

Robert L. Johnson, pro se, 1400 Ohio Avenue, McDonald, OH 44437, and Benjamin
Joltin, pro se, 4738 Michigan Boulevard, Youngstown, OH 44505 (Defendants-
Appellees).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Plaintiff-appellant, Matthew Paldino, appeals the November 7, 2022

Judgment Entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas with respect to the award

of damages. For the following reasons, we affirm the Judgment of the court below.

        {¶2}     On December 18, 2018, Paldino filed a Complaint alleging professional

negligence against defendants-appellees1, Attorneys Robert L. Johnson and Benjamin

Joltin. On June 3, 2020, the trial court entered default judgment against Joltin and

1. Neither Johnson nor Joltin filed appellate briefs or have otherwise participated in this appeal.
deferred the issue of damages for trial. On April 26, 2022, the matter was tried before the

court.

         {¶3}   On November 7, 2022, the trial court issued its Judgment, finding in favor

of Paldino and against Johnson and Joltin. The court found that Johnson represented

Paldino in the case of Lauren Latimer v. Matthew Paldino, Trumbull County Case No.

2010 CV 1229, which involved a parcel of real estate. In the underlying case, the court

determined that the equitable value of the property should be divided between the two

parties. Paldino was paying an outstanding mortgage on the real estate which reduced

the value of the real estate subject to division. Johnson, however, failed to introduce

evidence of this mortgage in the underlying proceedings resulting in Latimer receiving an

excessive share of the actual equity in the property.

         {¶4}   The trial court in the present case determined damages as follows:

                        Paldino submits that he is damaged in the amount of
                $169,079.00, which he claims are the actual damages plus punitive
                damages. The bulk of Paldino’s damages result from the failure to
                introduce evidence of the mortgage in the Latimer trial. In his trial
                brief, Plaintiff contends that had Johnson informed the magistrate
                and substantiated that there was an outstanding mortgage balance
                that his action alone would have reduced Paldino’s liability by
                $39,339.88 * * *. There is no dispute that Johnson submitted no
                evidence of the mortgage balance at the Latimer trial. The Court
                finds that Paldino is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount
                of $39,339.88 plus the statutory interest accrued as a result of the
                malpractice action.

                       Paldino also seeks damages for a return of the attorney fees
                that he paid to Johnson and Joltin. The Court declines to award a
                return of Johnson’s retainer because Paldino did receive some
                benefit from Johnson’s representation, as he did perform some
                benefits to Paldino in the Latimer trial. * * * In contrast, there is no
                evidence in the record to show that the $650.00 paid to Joltin
                benefited Paldino at all.

                                               2

Case No. 2022-T-0116
                    Next, Paldino seeks his attorney fees in bringing this
             malpractice case. * * * The Court is cognizant of the argument that
             attorney fees incurred to rectify malpractice are recoverable as
             consequential damages in a legal malpractice action, but even if the
             Court were so inclined to award damages on this basis, in this case
             Paldino has failed to sufficiently prove the amount of the damages.
             There is no itemized statement of attorney fees for the court to
             review, and absolutely no testimony regarding the reasonableness
             of the fees. While an independent expert is not always required to
             establish the reasonableness of claimed attorney fees, there should
             be some testimony in the record to support the amount awarded.
             Here, there is nothing but a list of checks made payable to Chuck
             McFarland [trial counsel], and no testimony as what those checks
             were payable for.

                     Paldino also seeks the repayments [sic] of costs for transcripts
             * * *. The Court finds that there was insufficient evidence produced
             to show that the transcripts were reasonable and necessary for the
             prosecution of the malpractice claim. * * *

                   Finally, Paldino seeks punitive damages. * * * Paldino has
             made no allegation that Johnson or Joltin acted with malice in this
             case. Punitive damages are not warranted here.

      {¶5}   Based on the foregoing, the trial court entered judgment “against

Defendants Robert Johnson and Benjamin Joltin, jointly and severally, in the amount of

$39,339.88 plus statutory interest as compensatory damages,” and “against Benjamin

Joltin solely in the amount of $650.00 for the cost of the failed appeal as compensatory

damages.”

      {¶6}   On December 6, 2022, Paldino filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, he

raises the following assignments of error:

             [1.] The trial court committed error as a matter of law, when it failed
             to award compensatory damages of expenses and attorney fees to
             Matthew Paldino in a legal malpractice action.

             [2.] The trial court abused its discretion, when it failed to award
             punitive damages to Matthew Paldino in a legal malpractice action.

                                             3

Case No. 2022-T-0116
       {¶7}   Paldino’s assignments of error challenge the trial court’s award of damages.

“In the civil context, a judgment will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against

the manifest weight of the evidence if there is some competent, credible evidence going

to all the essential elements of the case.” Terrell v. Morgan Furniture, 11th Dist. Trumbull

No. 2022-T-0033, 2022-Ohio-3981, ¶ 16.

       {¶8}   In the first assignment of error, Paldino argues that the trial court erred by

failing to award him expenses and attorney fees incurred in prosecuting his malpractice

claims against Johnson and Joltin as compensatory damages.

       {¶9}   The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff in a legal-

malpractice action may seek as consequential or compensatory damages “attorney fees

incurred to correct the mistakes of the malpracticing attorney.” Paterek v. Peterson &

Ibold, 118 Ohio St.3d 503, 2008-Ohio-2790, 890 N.E.2d 316, ¶ 28; Horn v. Cherian, 2023-

Ohio-931, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 53 (8th Dist.) (“[i]n legal-malpractice actions attorney fees that

are ‘incurred to rectify, or to attempt to rectify, the malpractice are recoverable as indirect,

or consequential damages’ when ‘the factfinder is persuaded that the fees and expenses

of the successor attorney were causally related to an established cause of action for

malpractice’”) (citation omitted). In a claim for legal malpractice, the “plaintiff has the

burden to submit evidence tending to show * * * that there is a causal connection between

the conduct complained of and the resulting damage [or] loss.” (Citations omitted.) Filby

v. Heffter & Russell, L.L.C., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2017-G-0128, 2018-Ohio-1333, ¶ 23;

McGraw v. Jarvis, 2021-Ohio-522, 168 N.E.3d 163, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.) (“a plaintiff claiming

legal malpractice must put forth evidence of damages”).

                                               4

Case No. 2022-T-0116
        {¶10} Alternatively, attorney fees may be awarded as an element of compensatory

damages when the opposing party is found to have acted in bad faith. Cruz v. English

Nanny & Governess School, 169 Ohio St.3d 716, 2022-Ohio-3586, 207 N.E.3d 742, ¶ 36.

        {¶11} Reasonableness has been described as the “benchmark” for virtually any

award of attorney fees. (Citation omitted.) Almasoodi v. J. Harris Constr. Inc., 2023-

Ohio-895, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 78 (5th Dist.). To this end, “[t]he most useful starting point for

determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended

on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” (Citation omitted.) Bittner v. Tri-

County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 569 N.E.2d 464 (1991).

        {¶12} In the present case, the trial court properly denied an award of attorney fees

as Paldino failed to present evidence to support such an award. As noted by the court,

the only evidence with respect to attorney fees in the record was an exhibit listing a series

of checks issued to Chuck McFarland. It is simply a list based on nothing in the record.

The checks themselves are not in evidence.2 The dates of the checks are not provided.

McFarland’s invoices or statements or bills are not provided. There is no testimony

regarding the services performed by McFarland, the number of hours expended, or the

rates charged for the services. There is not even any testimony suggesting that the

purported payments to McFarland were related to the litigation occasioned by Johnson’s

2. There are no copies of checks issued to McFarland attached to Paldino’s Motion for Summary Judgment
filed on July 23, 2019. The issue of whether the checks exist elsewhere in the record, however, is irrelevant
for the purposes of proving damages at trial. “In making its decision following trial, the trial court may only
consider the evidence the court admitted at trial. Other evidence in the record but not admitted at trial may
not be considered.” Hoaglin Holdings, Ltd. v Goliath Mtge., Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83657, 2004-Ohio-
3473, ¶ 15; Midstate Educators Credit Union, Inc. v. Werner, 175 Ohio App.3d 288, 2008-Ohio-641, 886
N.E.2d 893, ¶ 35 (10th Dist.) (“[t]he judgment of the trial court must be based upon the evidence actually
adduced from the witness stand, from exhibits admitted during trial or from any stipulations agreed upon by
counsel”) (citation omitted).
                                                      5

Case No. 2022-T-0116
and Joltin’s malpractice. The evidentiary record is wholly inadequate to support an award

of attorney fees under any theory of recovery.

        {¶13} The first assignment of error is without merit.

        {¶14} In the second assignment of error, Paldino argues that the trial court erred

by not awarding punitive damages as a result of obvious legal malpractice that resulted

in a complete disregard of his rights. Further, Paldino contests the court’s claim that he

made no allegations that Johnson or Joltin acted with malice when the Complaint contains

such allegations.3

        {¶15} In a tort action, punitive damages are not recoverable unless, inter alia,

“[t]he actions or omissions of [the] defendant demonstrate malice or aggravated or

egregious fraud.”        R.C. 2315.21(C)(1).         Malice necessary for an award of punitive

damages has been defined as “(1) that state of mind under which a person’s conduct is

characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, or (2) a conscious disregard for the

rights and safety of other persons that has a great probability of causing substantial harm.”

Preston v. Murty, 32 Ohio St.3d 334, 512 N.E.2d 1174 (1987), syllabus. “[T]he burden of

proof shall be upon a plaintiff in question, by clear and convincing evidence, to establish

that the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages.”                               R.C.

2315.21(D)(4).

        {¶16} In the present case, the evidence at trial did not substantiate the allegations

of the Complaint with respect to either malicious or fraudulent conduct.                          Only two

witnesses testified at trial on the merits. One was an expert testifying on Johnson’s behalf

3. We note that Paldino’s written Closing Argument, filed after trial, did not reassert the claim for punitive
damages.
                                                      6

Case No. 2022-T-0116
that he did not commit malpractice. The other witness was Paldino. There was nothing

in Paldino’s testimony to support an award of punitive damages. Paldino’s testimony

established that Johnson failed to introduce the mortgage as evidence in the underlying

case but, without more, this does not demonstrate malice or fraud. In the Complaint it

was alleged that Joltin concealed Johnson’s malpractice and failed to prosecute an

appeal on Paldino’s behalf. Accepting this as true in light of the default judgment against

Joltin, Paldino’s actual damages were only $650 as determined by the trial court and

Paldino acknowledged in the Complaint that the appeal did not have merit. Given the

record, punitive damages were properly denied.

      {¶17} The second assignment of error is without merit.

      {¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment of the Trumbull County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                            7

Case No. 2022-T-0116