Court Opinion

ID: 9960196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 17:09:50.907365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:16.955248
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Smith v. Perkins, 2024-Ohio-1419.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              HANCOCK COUNTY

KELTON K. SMITH,
                                                          CASE NO. 5-23-18
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

    v.

JOEL PERKINS,                                             OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

                         Appeal from Findlay Municipal Court
                            Trial Court No. 22CVF01280

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                             Date of Decision: April 15, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Kelton K. Smith, Appellant
Case No. 5-23-18

ZIMMERMAN, J.

      {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Kelton K. Smith (“Smith”), a licensed Ohio attorney

representing himself, appeals the May 22, 2023 judgment entry of the Findlay

Municipal Court granting judgment in his favor against defendant-appellee, Joel

Perkins (“Perkins”), and awarding him $250.00 in compensatory damages. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

      {¶2} This case stems from an altercation that occurred on June 17, 2022

between Smith and Perkins at the Menards home-improvement store in Findlay,

Ohio. On the same day that the altercation occurred, Smith filed a complaint in the

Findlay Municipal Court alleging a claim for assault and battery and seeking

$15,000.00 in damages. Smith filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2022

alleging a claim for assault and battery but seeking $7,500.00 in compensatory

damages and $7,500.00 in punitive damages. Smith served a request for admissions

on Perkins on June 24, 2022.

      {¶3} Because Perkins did not respond to Smith’s request for admissions

within 28 days, Smith filed a motion in the trial court on August 1, 2022 to deem

his request for admissions of Perkins admitted. The trial court granted his request

on August 3, 2022. Nevertheless, Perkins filed his response to Smith’s request for

admissions on August 8, 2022. However, on August 10, 2022, Smith filed a motion

                                        -2-
Case No. 5-23-18

to strike Perkins’s response to his request for admissions since Perkins’s response

was not timely.

         {¶4} Moreover, since Perkins did not file an answer to the complaint, Smith

filed a motion in the trial court requesting a default judgment on August 3, 2022.1

         {¶5} On August 11, 2022, Smith filed a motion in limine requesting that the

trial court limit Perkins from presenting “evidence at further hearing in this cause”

since the trial court “ordered that [Perkins] had admitted all of the admissions

contained within [Smith’s] request.” (Doc. No. 22).

         {¶6} The case proceeded to a hearing on September 26, 2022 during which

the trial court denied Smith’s motion to strike Perkins’s response to his request for

admissions and Smith’s motion in limine, then the trial court proceeded to a hearing

on the issue of damages. On May 22, 2023, the trial court granted judgment in favor

of Smith and awarded him $250.00 in compensatory damages. (Doc. No. 29).

         {¶7} On June 21, 2023, Smith field his notice of appeal.2 He raises three

assignments of error for our review.

                                    First Assignment of Error

         The trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s Motion to Strike
         Appellee’s responses to Appellant’s Request for Admission which
         were filed out-of-rule and without leave of court.

1
 Even though Perkins did not file an answer to the complaint, he appeared in this case on August 1, 2022.
2
 Perkins did not file an appellee’s brief in this case. Under such “circumstances, App.R. 18(C) provides that
we ‘may accept the appellant’s statement of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if
appellant's brief reasonably appears to sustain such action.’” Prater v. Mullins, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-13-
04, 2013-Ohio-3981, ¶ 4, fn. 1, quoting Heilman v. Heilman, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-12-08, 2012-Ohio-5133,
¶ 16.

                                                    -3-
Case No. 5-23-18

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

by denying his motion to strike Perkins’s untimely response to his request for

admissions. That is, Smith contends that the trial court erred by admitting Perkins’s

untimely response to his request for admissions.

                                 Standard of Review

       {¶9} This court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit untimely responses

to a party’s request for admissions for an abuse of discretion.             Brown v.

Morganstern, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0164, 2004-Ohio-2930, ¶ 49; State

ex rel. Davila v. Bucyrus, 194 Ohio App.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-1731, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.).

See also Riverside Drive Enterprises, LLC v. Geotechnology, Inc., 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-220099, 2023-Ohio-583, ¶ 11 (“This court reviews a trial court’s

ruling on a motion to strike for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion

suggests the trial court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

                                       Analysis

       {¶10} “Requests for Admissions are governed by Civil Rule 36.” Corwin v.

Kimble, 5th Dist. Licking No. 22CA00002, 2022-Ohio-3395, ¶ 31. The rule

provides, in its relevant part, that “[t]he matter is admitted unless, within a period

designated in the request, not less than twenty-eight days after service of the request

or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the

request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer

                                         -4-
Case No. 5-23-18

or objection * * * .” Civ.R. 36(A)(1). “Thus, failure to timely respond or to respond

at all will result in the requested matter being deemed admitted.” Corwin at ¶ 32.

See also Davila at ¶ 28 (professing that “a party’s failure to timely respond to a

request for admissions results in matters being automatically admitted under Civ.R.

36(A)”).

       {¶11} Under the rule, “‘[a]ny matter admitted under Civ.R. 36 is

conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or

amendment of the admission.’” Corwin ¶ 32, quoting Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis,

20 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 (1985), citing Civ.R. 36(B). “And [a] request for admission

can be used to establish a fact, even if it goes to the heart of the case.’” (Emphasis

added.) Id., quoting Cleveland Trust at 67. However, under Civ.R. 36(B), “the

court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of

the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails

to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice the party in

maintaining his action or defense on the merits.”

       {¶12} In this case, Smith served his request for admissions on Perkins on

June 24, 2022. Because Perkins did not respond to Smith’s request for admissions

within the 28 days as provided by Civ.R. 36, Smith (needlessly) filed a motion on

August 1, 2022 requesting that the trial court deem admitted his request for

admissions of Perkins, which the trial court granted. See Black v. Hicks, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 108958, 2020-Ohio-3976, ¶ 65 (“Under Civ.R. 36(A), requests for

                                         -5-
Case No. 5-23-18

admissions are self-executing; if a party fails to respond to a request or an admission,

the matter is automatically deemed admitted and no further action is required by the

party requesting it.”); Palmer-Donavin v. Hanna, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-

699, 2007-Ohio-2242, ¶ 11 (noting that “[t]he fact that Palmer-Donavin filed a

motion seeking to admit those requests did not somehow erode the self-executing

nature of those requests”). Nevertheless, Perkins filed his response to Smith’s

request for admissions on August 8, 2022. Smith replied to Perkins’s untimely

response by filing a motion to strike Perkins’s response to the request for admissions

on August 10, 2022.

        {¶13} At the September 26, 2022 hearing, the trial court initially stated that

it was “going to deny Mr. Smith’s motion” because it “already had deemed the

request to be admitted.”3            (Sept. 26, 2022 Tr. at 17).              Notwithstanding that

pronouncement, the trial court proceeded to “a hearing for the motion for default

solely on the issue of what damages would be appropriate to award Mr. Smith based

on the fact that Mr. Perkins did not file an answer to the complaint nor did he

respond to those admissions.” (Id. at 21). Consequently, our review of the record

reveals that the trial court granted Smith’s motion to strike Perkins’s responses to

his request for admissions as to the issue of liability but denied Smith’s motion as

to the issue of damages.

3
 The trial court memorialized its decision denying Smith’s motion to strike Perkins’s untimely response to
his request for admissions in its May 22, 2023 entry.

                                                   -6-
Case No. 5-23-18

       {¶14} “Civ.R. 36 does not specify that a formal motion is required nor does

the rule identify a time when the motion must be filed.” Corwin, 2022-Ohio-3395,

at ¶ 34, citing Balson v. Dodds, 62 Ohio St.2d 287, 290 (1980), fn. 2. “Courts have

accepted, absent a written or oral motion to withdraw, various challenges to the truth

of an admission as implicit motions to withdraw.” Id., citing C.S.J. v. S.E.J., 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108390, 2020-Ohio-492, ¶ 12 and Balson at fn. 2 (contesting

the truth of admissions serves as evidence of a motion to withdraw the admissions).

See also Haskett v. Haskett, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-155, 2013-Ohio-145, ¶ 25

(challenging the truth of the admissions during trial proceedings constitutes a

motion to withdraw or amend admissions).

       {¶15} “‘In making its determination of whether to permit a withdrawal or

amendment of the admissions, the trial court is required to consider the elements of

Civ.R. 36(B).’” Corwin at ¶ 38, quoting Bush v. Eckman, 5th Dist. Licking No.

07CA0115, 2008-Ohio-5080, ¶ 23.            See also Kutscherousky v. Integrated

Communications Sols., LLC, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2004 CA 00338, 2005-Ohio-4275,

¶ 17 (stressing that “standard set forth in Civ. R. 36 makes no mention of ‘excusable

neglect’”). “‘Ohio courts have stylized this consideration into a multi-pronged

analysis.’” Corwin at ¶ 38, quoting Bush at ¶ 23.

       {¶16} “First, there is the overarching goal that cases should be resolved on

their merits.” Id. at ¶ 39. Under this step, the trial court “must determine whether

the amendment or withdrawal of the admissions will aid in presenting the merits of

                                         -7-
Case No. 5-23-18

the case.” Id. See also Stevens v. Cox, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-08-020, 2009-Ohio-

391, ¶ 52 (asserting that “‘this burden is clearly met when the effect of denying a

motion to withdraw and amend would “practically eliminate any presentation of the

merits”’”), quoting Kutscherousky at ¶ 19, quoting Westmoreland v. Triumph

Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192, 193 (D.Conn.1976).

       {¶17} Second, “[i]f the court so determines, the burden then shifts to the

party who obtained the admissions to establish that the withdrawal or amendment

will prejudice the party in maintaining their action.” Corwin at ¶ 39. “‘Against this

prejudice, the court must weigh the “compelling” circumstances that led to the

failure to respond to the request for admissions.’” Id., quoting RKT Properties,

L.L.C. v. Northwood, 162 Ohio App.3d 590, 2005-Ohio-4178, ¶ 12 (6th Dist.).

       {¶18} In this case, Perkins admitted to most of the facts underlying Smith’s

claim by failing to timely respond to his request for admissions. Compare Abuhilwa

v. Corr. Med. Ctr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-642, 2008-Ohio-6915, ¶ 12.

Significantly, because the crux of Smith’s argument in the trial court and on appeal

is that Perkins’s admissions alone warranted an entry of judgment in his favor, the

first portion of the analysis is satisfied. Accord id.; Balson, 62 Ohio St.2d. at 290-

291 (analyzing that “[i]t is uncontested that presentation of the merits herein would

be enhanced by permitting appellee to file untimely answers”). In other words,

amendment or withdrawal of Perkins’s admissions would have “furthered the

                                         -8-
Case No. 5-23-18

presentation and resolution of the case on its merits, instead of the admissions.”

Abuhilwa at ¶ 12. See also Davila, 194 Ohio App.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-1731, at ¶ 29.

       {¶19} Turning to the second portion of the analysis, Smith failed to identify

any prejudice to him resulting from amendment or withdrawal of Perkins’s

admissions as to the issue of damages and we see none. Accord French v. Dwiggins,

9 Ohio St.3d 32, 37 (1984); Abuhilwa at ¶ 12; Davila at ¶ 30. “Prejudice under

Civ.R. 36(B), however, does not result simply because the party who initially

obtained the admission will now have to convince the fact finder of its truth.”

Davila at ¶ 30. Indeed, “[c]ourts have recognized that, where a party all but

conceded liability through its admission in a contested case, it is unlikely that the

opposing party could have reasonably relied on the truth of the admission.”

Kutscherousky, 2005-Ohio-4275, at ¶ 27. That is, even if Smith relied on Perkins’s

admissions during his trial preparations, “courts are ‘“‘loathe to reward what would

have been an unreasonable reliance in order to glorify technical compliance with

the rules of civil procedure.’”’” (Emphasis added.) C.S.J., 2020-Ohio-492, at ¶ 16,

quoting Bayview Loan Servicing L.L.C. v. St. Cyr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104655,

2017-Ohio-2758, ¶ 23, quoting Kutscherousky at ¶ 28, quoting Westmoreland, 71

F.R.D. at 193.

       {¶20} Moreover, the circumstances that led to Perkins’s failure to respond to

Smith’s request for admissions do not weigh against withdrawal or amendment of

Perkins’s admissions. Significantly, the record reflects that Perkins’s delay in

                                         -9-
Case No. 5-23-18

providing his response to Smith’s request for admissions was less than three weeks

past the due date for his response and while discovery was ongoing. Compare

Davila at ¶ 31 (noting that “the respondents’ delay in providing responses to the

request for admissions was only a little more than a month past the due date for

responses and while discovery was ongoing”); Kutscherousky at ¶ 23 (noting that

“the appellant’s responses were only nine days late; both parties were aware of each

other’s position on the merits of the case; [and] the time frame for discovery had not

expired and was not close to expiring”). In particular, at the September 26, 2022

hearing, Perkins informed the trial court that he did not receive Smith’s request for

admissions until early August and that he had “it two days and [then] brought it [to

the court] Friday, but [it was] already closed Friday, so [he] had to bring it in

Monday.” (Sept. 26, 2022 Tr. at 8).

       {¶21} Based on the foregoing reasons, the grounds for granting a Civ.R.

36(B) motion were satisfied under the facts presented. Therefore, the trial court’s

decision, in effect, to permit Perkins to withdraw his admissions as to the issue of

damages and to proceed with a hearing on the issue of damages is not unreasonable,

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accord C.S.J. at ¶ 18 (“The trial court did not abuse

its discretion when it allowed C.S.J. to proceed at trial and, in effect, permitted her

to withdraw her Civ.R. 36(A) admissions.”); French, 9 Ohio St.3d at 37 (holding

“that the trial court properly ruled that the amount of damages not be deemed

conclusively established under Civ.R. 36”). See also Davila at ¶ 31 (concluding

                                         -10-
Case No. 5-23-18

that “the trial court’s refusal to grant the Civ.R. 36(B) motion in effect resulted in a

default judgment against the respondents in the amount of $1,409,000,” which was

“simply unreasonable under the circumstances of this case and contrary to ‘“[the]

basic tenet of Ohio jurisprudence that cases should be decided on their merits”’”),

quoting First Fed. Bank of Ohio v. Angelini, 160 Ohio App.3d 821, 2005-Ohio-

2242, ¶ 22 (3d Dist.), quoting Perotti v. Ferguson, 7 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 (1983).

       {¶22} For these reasons, Smith’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                           Second Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s Motion In
       Limine and permitted Appellee to produce evidence which would
       tend in any way to contradict facts and admissions which the trial
       court had previously ordered that Appellee had admitted.

       {¶23} In his second assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court

erred by denying his motion in limine, which requested the trial court to limit

Perkins from presenting any evidence that would contradict his purported

admissions in this case.

                                 Standard of Review

       {¶24} “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine for an abuse of

discretion.” Childs v. Kroger Co., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 22AP-524, 2023-Ohio-

2034, ¶ 57. See also Wasinski v. PECO II, Inc., 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-08-14,

2009-Ohio-2615, ¶ 55 (applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a trial

court’s ruling on a motion in limine). Again, for this court to determine that the trial

                                         -11-
Case No. 5-23-18

court abused its discretion, we must conclude that the trial court acted unreasonably,

arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219.

                                                  Analysis

           {¶25} At the September 26, 2022 hearing, the trial court denied Smith’s

motion in limine after concluding that the hearing would proceed only “on the issue

of what damages would be appropriate to award Mr. Smith based on the fact that

Mr. Perkins did not file an answer to the complaint nor did he respond to those

admissions.” 4 (Sept. 26, 2022 Tr. at 21). Proceeding only on the issue of damages,

Perkins did not present any evidence. (See Sept. 26, 2022 Tr. at 46-47). Compare

Brentson v. Chappell, 66 Ohio App.3d 83, 87 (8th Dist.1990) (evaluating that “the

record reveals that appellee neither raised the issue of the cause of the electrical

failure nor did appellee offer expert testimony during trial on said issue”).

           {¶26} “It is well established that a decision on a motion in limine is a

‘tentative, preliminary or presumptive ruling about an evidentiary issue that is

anticipated but has not yet been presented in its full context.’” Wasinski at ¶ 52,

quoting State v. Geboy, 145 Ohio St.3d 706, 726 (2001). “‘An appellate court need

not review the propriety of such an order unless the claimed error is preserved by

an objection, proffer, or ruling on the record when the issue is actually reached and

the context is developed at trial.’” (Emphasis deleted.) Gollihue v. Consol. Rail

4
    The trial court memorialized its decision denying Smith’s motion in limine in its May 22, 2023 entry.

                                                     -12-
Case No. 5-23-18

Corp., 120 Ohio App.3d 378, 388 (3d Dist.1997), quoting State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio

St.3d 199, 203 (1986). In other words, “[a] court’s initial denial of a motion in

limine does not preserve any error for review.” White v. Ctr. Mfg. Co., 126 Ohio

App.3d 715, 722 (6th Dist.1998). “Thus, the evidence at issue must be presented at

trial, and a proper proffer made, in order to preserve the error for appeal.” Id.

       {¶27} Because Perkins did not present any evidence relative to damages at

the damages hearing, there is no error for us to review. Accord Brentson at 87

(holding that “[e]rror, therefore, may not be predicated on the trial court’s denial of

appellant’s motion in limine since a final ruling with respect to the contested

evidence was not reached by the trial court”). See also Morgan v. Ohio State Univ.

College of Dentistry, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-287, 2014-Ohio-1846, ¶ 34.

       {¶28} Smith’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                            Third Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred when it ruled that even after it had ordered
       on 3 August 2022 that Appellant [sic] had admitted each and
       every one of the thirty-three (33) requests for admission
       propounded upon him in Appellant’s Request for Admission, the
       admissions contained within such Request for Admission were not
       conclusively established and did not support Appellant’s claim for
       damages contained within his Amended Complaint because
       Appellee was appearing pro se, without counsel.

       {¶29} In his third assignment of error, Smith challenges the trial court’s

judgment awarding him $250.00 in compensatory damages. Specifically, Smith

argues that, because Perkins “already admitted and it was conclusively established

                                         -13-
Case No. 5-23-18

that he owed [Smith] $7,500.00 in compensatory damages and $7,500.00 in punitive

damages,” the trial court should have awarded him $15,000.00 in damages.

(Appellant’s Brief at 19).

                                Standard of Review

       {¶30} Generally, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for

default judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

v. Thompson, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-12-20, 2013-Ohio-644, ¶ 8. See also Sailors

v. Pacheco, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-011, 2021-Ohio-3180, ¶ 41 (applying the

abuse-of-discretion standard of review “when a trial court decides a motion for

default judgment after hearing evidence”). Once more, for a trial court to abuse its

discretion, the trial court’s decision must be unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219.

       {¶31} “However, once default judgment is entered, ‘the determination of the

kind and maximum amount of damages that may be awarded is not committed to

the discretion of the trial court, but is subject to the mandates of Civ.R. 55(C) and

Civ.R. 54(C).’” Sailors at ¶ 43, quoting Natl. City Bank v. Shuman, 9th Dist.

Summit No. 21484, 2003-Ohio-6116, ¶ 6. “Thus, ‘the question of whether a trial

court’s grant of default judgment complies with Civ.R. 55(C) and Civ.R. 54(C) is

one of law, which we review de novo.’” Id., quoting Shuman at ¶ 6. “De novo

review is independent and without deference to the trial court’s determination.”

ISHA, Inc. v. Risser, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-12-47, 2013-Ohio-2149, ¶ 25.

                                        -14-
Case No. 5-23-18

       {¶32} When a trial court’s damages award complies with the mandates of

Civ.R. 55(C) and Civ.R. 54(C), “[a] reviewing court ordinarily will uphold a trial

court’s damage award if it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Clark

v. Enchanted Hills Community Assn., 4th Dist. Highland No. 19CA4, 2020-Ohio-

553, ¶ 9. See also R.C. 2315.21(B)(3). “Judgments supported by some competent,

credible evidence * * * will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against

the manifest weight of the evidence.” Sailors at ¶ 46. See also Brooks v. RKUK,

Inc., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2021CA00048, 2022-Ohio-266, ¶ 56 (“‘This standard of

review is highly deferential and even “some” evidence is sufficient to support a

court’s judgment and to prevent a reversal.’”), quoting Clark at ¶ 9.

                                      Analysis

       {¶33} “The award of default judgment is governed under Civ.R. 55 and

provides that ‘[i]n all cases a judgment by default is subject to the limitations of

Rule 54(C).’” Arendt v. Price, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101710, 2015-Ohio-528, ¶

10, quoting Dye v. Smith, 189 Ohio App.3d 116, 2010-Ohio-3539, ¶ 8 (4th Dist.).

Civ.R. 54(C) provides that “[a] judgment by default shall not be different in kind

from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment.”

       The primary purpose of Civ.R. 54(C)’s limitations on default
       judgment is to ensure that defendants are clearly notified of the
       maximum potential liability to which they are exposed, so that they
       may make an informed, rational choice to either: (1) enable a default
       judgment by not responding, or (2) invest the time and expense
       involved in defending an action.

                                        -15-
Case No. 5-23-18

Shuman at ¶ 11.

       {¶34} In this case, Smith does not dispute that the trial court complied with

Civ.R. 55(C) and Civ.R. 54(C). Rather, Smith argues that the trial court should have

awarded him $15,000.00 in damages ($7,500.00 in compensatory damages and

$7,500.00 in punitive damages) because Perkins admitted to his liability in that

amount by failing to respond to Smith’s request for admissions. Smith’s argument

is without merit.

       {¶35} Civ.R. 55(A) prescribes when a hearing on damages is necessary and

provides, in its relevant part, that

       [if], in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into
       effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of
       damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to
       make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such
       hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper *
       * *.

Civ.R. 55(A). Consequently, a “trial court has the discretion to conduct a hearing

following an entry of default judgment in order to determine the measure of

damages.” Skiver v. Wilson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106560, 2018-Ohio-3795, ¶

15, citing Malaco Constr. v. Jones, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 94APE10-1466, 1995

WL 506026, *8 (Aug. 24, 1995) and Buckeye Supply Co. v. N.E. Drilling Co., 24

Ohio App.3d 134, 136 (9th Dist.1985) (“It has always been within the discretion of

the trial court to determine whether further evidence is required to support a claim

against a defaulting defendant.”). Since “the determination of damages necessarily

                                        -16-
Case No. 5-23-18

requires consideration of information outside a written instrument, the trial court

abuses its discretion [by] failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the

exact amount of damages.” Am. Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Hussein, 10th

Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-352, 2011-Ohio-6766, ¶ 16.

      {¶36} “In conducting a hearing on damages, the trial court has broad

discretion in assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence of damages.”

Skiver at ¶ 18. “And there is no requirement that a trial court award damages based

upon the estimates provided.” Id. Critically, “an appellant’s disagreement with the

trier of fact as to the appropriate amount of damages is not grounds for reversal.”

Id., quoting Arendt, 2015-Ohio-528, at ¶ 16.

      {¶37} Importantly, a trial court lacks authority to award damages in the

absence of evidence supporting the damage award. Kelley v. Sullivan, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 106189, 2018-Ohio-1410, ¶ 10, citing Carr v. Charter Natl. Life Ins.

Co., 22 Ohio St.3d 11 (1986), syllabus. “‘Where a damages claim is “liquidated”

or based on a readily ascertainable amount, such as an account, no additional proof

is necessary.’” Id., quoting K. Ronald Bailey & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. v. Soltesz, 6th

Dist. Erie No. E-05-077, 2006-Ohio-2489, ¶ 16. See also Clark, 2020-Ohio-553, at

¶ 11 (“In the context of damages on default judgment, generally, no proof of

damages is required for a liquidated damages claim.”). “A liquidated damages

claim is one ‘that can be determined with exactness from the agreement between the

parties or by arithmetical process or by the application of definite rules of law.’”

                                       -17-
Case No. 5-23-18

Clark at ¶ 11, quoting Huo Chin Yin v. Amino Prods. Co., 141 Ohio St. 21, 29

(1943).

       {¶38} “‘However, when the judgment is not liquidated, or only partially

liquidated, it is reversible error for the trial court to enter a default judgment without

holding a hearing on the damages issue.’” (Emphasis added.) Hull v. Clem D’s

Auto Sales, 2d Dist. Darke No. 2011 CA 6, 2012-Ohio-629, ¶ 7, quoting Mid-

American Acceptance Co. v. Reedy, 11th Dist. Lake No. 89-L-14-072, 1990 WL

94816, *2 (June 29, 1990). In such circumstances, “[b]efore a money judgment may

be awarded, the plaintiff must establish evidence of the damages.” Brooks, 2022-

Ohio-266, at ¶ 55. Typically, “‘once a right to damages has been established, that

right cannot be denied because damages are incapable of being calculated with

mathematical certainty.’” Clark at ¶ 10, quoting Labonte v. Labonte, 4th Dist.

Meigs No. 07CA15, 2008-Ohio-5086, ¶ 19, quoting Pingue v. Pingue, 5th Dist.

Delaware No. 95CAF02006, 1995 WL 768535, *10 (Nov. 6, 1995). “‘“However,

the amount of damages must be susceptible of ascertainment in some manner other

than by mere speculation, conjecture or surmise.”’” Id., quoting Labonte at ¶ 19,

quoting Pingue at *10.

       {¶39} In this case, Smith sought compensatory and punitive damages.

“Compensatory damages are intended to make whole the plaintiff for the wrong

done to him or her by the defendant.” Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Prod. Co., 64

Ohio St.3d 601, 612 (1992). “Compensatory damages are defined as those which

                                          -18-
Case No. 5-23-18

measure the actual loss, and are allowed as amends therefor.” Id. “Compensatory

damages include both economic damages—‘direct pecuniary loss, such as hospital

and other medical expenses immediately resulting from the injury, or loss of time

or money from the injury, loss due to the permanency of the injuries, disabilities or

disfigurement’—and noneconomic damages.” Brooks v. Montgomery Care Ctr.,

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130838, 2014-Ohio-4644, ¶ 8, quoting Fantozzi at 612.

“‘Usually awarded for pain and suffering, noneconomic damages can also include

compensation for loss of ability to perform usual functions; loss of consortium,

mental anguish, or other intangible loss; and humiliation or embarrassment.’” Id.,

quoting Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 177, 2006-Ohio-5481, ¶

19.   “The assessment of such damage is, however, a matter solely for the

determination of the trier of fact because there is no standard by which such pain

and suffering may be measured.” Fantozzi at 612. See also Waxman Dev., L.L.C.

v. Iron Cowboy Prods., L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103453, 2016-Ohio-3458, ¶

22 (noting that a plaintiff must prove the amount of compensatory damages sought

by a preponderance of the evidence).

       {¶40} “In Ohio, punitive damages may be awarded in tort actions involving

fraud, malice, or insult.” Gibbons v. Shalodi, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 19CA011586,

2021-Ohio-1910, ¶ 52. See also R.C. 2315.21(C)(1). “The purpose of punitive

damages is not to compensate a plaintiff, but to punish and deter certain conduct.”

Burns v. Prudential Secs., Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 809, 2006-Ohio-3550, ¶ 98 (3d

                                        -19-
Case No. 5-23-18

Dist.). “Accordingly, an award of punitive damages requires something more than

a showing of mere negligence.” Id. “Punitive damages are, by nature, unliquidated

damages that require additional evidence.”         Berube v. Richardson, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 104651, 2017-Ohio-1367, ¶ 10.              Therefore, a plaintiff must

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is entitled to recover

punitive damages. Burns at ¶ 98, citing R.C. 2315.21(D)(4). “Clear and convincing

evidence is that ‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or

conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Desai v. Franklin, 177 Ohio

App.3d 679, 2008-Ohio-3957, ¶ 40 (9th Dist.), quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio

St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

       {¶41} “‘Actual malice, necessary for an award of punitive damages, is (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.’” Kelley, 2018-

Ohio-1410, at ¶ 9, quoting Preston v. Murty, 32 Ohio St.3d 334 (1987), syllabus.

       {¶42} Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by granting default judgment in favor of Smith and awarding

him $250.00 in compensatory damages. That is, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by conducting a hearing following its decision granting default judgment

in favor of Smith in order to determine the measure of damages in this case. See

Henderson v. SMC Productions, Inc., 6th Dist. Erie No. E-18-003, 2019-Ohio-5275,

                                         -20-
Case No. 5-23-18

¶ 126 (Zmuda, J., dissenting) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by deciding “to hold a hearing on appellants’ claim for unliquidated

damages” and did not “abuse [its] discretion in requiring appellants to prove their

damages rather than merely relying on unanswered requests for admission that

purport to establish damages”). Indeed, even though “a defendant’s failure to

answer or otherwise defend a complaint constitutes an admission of facts alleged in

the complaint,” those admitted facts alone are insufficient to warrant the imposition

of damages. Favors v. Burke, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98617, 2013-Ohio-823, ¶ 16.

See also Carr v. Charter Natl. Life Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St.3d 11, 13 (1986).

       {¶43} Specifically, as we determined in Smith’s first assignment of error, the

trial court proceeded to a hearing on the issue of damages after denying Smith’s

motion to strike Perkins’s untimely response to his request for admissions (and, in

effect, permitting Perkins to withdraw his admissions) as to the issue of damages.

Stated another way, the trial court proceeded on the issue of damages after granting

default judgment in favor of Smith since Perkins did not file an answer to the

complaint in this case. Consequently, since the measure of damages in this case is

not liquidated and because Smith did not attach an affidavit to his motion for default

judgment itemizing his damages, it was necessary for the trial court to conduct such

hearing. See Henderson at ¶ 125 (Zmuda, J., dissenting) (noting that, even when

admitted, “proof of damages is generally required for unliquidated damages” and

“‘when [a] judgment is not liquidated, or only partially liquidated, it is reversible

                                        -21-
Case No. 5-23-18

error for the trial court to enter a default judgment without holding a hearing on the

damages issue’”), quoting Hull, 2012-Ohio-629, at ¶ 7; Heckman v. Porter, 5th Dist.

Stark No. 2002CA00380, 2003-Ohio-3135, ¶ 6-7, 15.

       {¶44} Even though Smith sought $15,000.00 in damages—$7,500.00 in

compensatory damages and $7,500.00 in punitive damages—Smith’s prayer for

$15,000.00 in damages appears to be based on the jurisdictional limits of the

municipal court rather than the actual damages he suffered. Compare Hull at ¶ 9

(noting that damages in the amount of $15,000.00 “appears to be based on the

jurisdictional limits of the municipal court, rather than the actual damages suffered

by the Hulls”). Importantly, the only evidence Smith presented in support of his

claim for $15,000.00 in damages is Perkins’s admissions. Compare Bayview Loan

Servicing, 2017-Ohio-2758, at ¶ 29 (recognizing that “St. Cyr relie[d] solely upon

the deemed admissions to support his claim”); Kelley, 2018-Ohio-1410, at ¶ 14

(“Kelley provided no evidence to support an amount of punitive damages except for

requests for admissions”).

       {¶45} However, based on our review of the record, the trial court’s award of

$250.00 in compensatory damages is not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the only evidence that Smith

presented in support of his compensatory-damages claim was his testimony

regarding his noneconomic loss. Indeed, the trial court found that Smith “did not

provide any evidence of any economic loss for which he can recover compensatory

                                        -22-
Case No. 5-23-18

damages.” (Doc. No. 29). Compare Brooks, 2014-Ohio-4644, at ¶ 9 (concluding

that Brooks failed to demonstrate evidence of economic loss because “Brooks

offered no evidence that her brother suffered direct pecuniary loss”). Consequently,

the trial court resolved that Smith “is entitled to a nominal award of compensatory

damages for his noneconomic loss” since he “did not provide any further

explanation or description of the injuries, did not indicate that they were severe

enough to seek medical treatment and did not indicate that they were severe enough

for him to miss work.” (Doc. No. 29).

       {¶46} Some competent, credible evidence supports the trial court’s

determination that Smith is entitled to $250.00 in compensatory damages for his

noneconomic loss. In particular, at the September 26, 2022 hearing, the only

evidence that Smith presented regarding his compensatory damages was his

testimony that he sustained minimal injuries and minimal mental anguish. (See

Sept. 26, 2022 Tr. at 32-33). Compare Hull, 2012-Ohio-629, at ¶ 8 (noting that

“[t]he Hulls did not detail the amount of damages that they had suffered for each

claim, and nothing in the record indicated the amount” sought).          Since such

noneconomic-loss award is “a matter solely for the determination of the trier of fact

because there is no standard by which such pain and suffering may be measured,”

the trial court’s compensatory-damage calculation is not against the manifest weight

of the evidence. Fantozzi, 64 Ohio St.3d at 612.

                                        -23-
Case No. 5-23-18

       {¶47} As to Smith’s claim for $7,500.00 in punitive damages, the trial court

determined that Smith “is not entitled to an award of punitive damages” because it

could not “find based on the evidence presented by [Smith] that [Perkins] possessed

a state of mind under which his conduct could be characterized by hatred, ill will or

a spirit of revenge, or that he had a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of

other persons that ha[d] a great probability of causing substantial harm.” (Doc. No.

29). Critically, the trial court found that Perkins “was at his truck and was

attempting to load or unload his items when [Smith] approached him, instigated an

argument and followed [Perkins] when he attempted to walk away from him.” (Id.).

       {¶48} Nevertheless, Smith contends that the trial court erred by denying his

request for $7,500.00 in punitive damages because,

       [w]ith it being given that [Perkins] admitted the operative facts and
       the damages he owed [Smith], and with such facts are conclusively
       established, there could be no other conclusion than a preponderance
       of the evidence indicates that [Perkins] owes [Smith] * * * the amount
       of [$7,500.00] in punitive damages for [Smith’s] intentional and
       unprovoked act of assaulting [Smith] on 17 June 2022.

(Appellant’s Brief at 20). Smith’s argument is misplaced. Imperatively, Smith bore

the burden of proving entitlement to punitive damages by clear and convincing

evidence. Kelley, 2018-Ohio-1410, at ¶ 13. Thus, even if Perkins’s admissions

were “deemed admitted by default,” such admission “may satisfy the preponderance

of the evidence measure of proof, but the clear and convincing standard requires

                                        -24-
Case No. 5-23-18

something more.” Id. at ¶ 15. “Moreover, punitive damages are not recoverable as

of right; their allowance is discretionary.” Id. at ¶ 16.

       {¶49} In this case, other than his insistence that Perkins admitted to owing

him $7,500.00 in punitive damages, Smith highlights no evidence to indicate that

he is entitled to a punitive-damages award. Compare id. at ¶ 14 (“Kelley provided

no evidence to support an amount of punitive damages except for requests for

admissions.”); Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Synder, S.D.Ohio No. 2:17-CV-

349, 2018 WL 6573682, *7 (Dec. 13, 2018). We see no evidence—let alone clear

and convincing evidence—presented by Smith at the damages hearing reflecting

that Perkins acted with actual malice. Rather, our review of the record reveals that

there is some competent, credible evidence—namely, “the video admitted by

[Smith] as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A”— supporting the trial court’s determination that

Smith did not present clear and convincing evidence that Perkins acted with actual

malice. (Doc. No. 29). Thus, because the trial court has broad discretion in

assessing the weight and credibility of such evidence, the trial court’s punitive-

damages award is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶50} For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court’s measure of

damages is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Consequently, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion by granting a default judgment in favor of Smith

and awarding him $250.00 in compensatory damages.

       {¶51} Smith’s third assignment of error is overruled.

                                         -25-
Case No. 5-23-18

       {¶52} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/hls

                                        -26-