Court Opinion

ID: 9400868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:10:09.182455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.595599
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Sanford v. Griffin, 2023-Ohio-1917.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   NOBLE COUNTY

                                       DAVID G. SANFORD,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                                    v.

                                        CHARLES GRIFFIN,

                                        Defendant-Appellee.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 22 NO 0491

                                     Civil Appeal from the
                            Noble County Court, Small Claims Division,
                                      Noble County, Ohio
                                     Case No. 21 CVI 150

                                          BEFORE:
                  Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Affirmed.

David G. Sanford, Pro se, 601 Walnut Street, Caldwell, Ohio 43724, Plaintiff-Appellant
and

Charles Griffin, Pro se, Defendant-Appellee. (No Brief filed).

                                          Dated: June 9, 2023
                                                                                     –2–

Hanni, J.

      {¶1}   Plaintiff-Appellant, David G. Sanford, appeals from a Noble County Court,
Small Claims Division judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, Charles Griffin, on
Appellant’s claim that Appellee stole his personal property.
      {¶2}   Appellant and Appellee entered into an agreement whereby Appellant paid
Appellee $10 per hour to perform renovation work at dilapidated properties owned by
Appellant. Appellant also agreed to let Appellee live at one of the properties. Appellee
was living in a camper on Appellant’s West Street property. Appellant came to believe
that Appellee was stealing from him and evicted him, without a court order, from that
property in November 2021.
      {¶3}   On December 29, 2021, Appellant filed a small claims complaint against
Appellee on an account owed. Appellant attached a list of items and their value that he
alleged Appellee took from his property including such things as a chain saw, an
extension ladder, a Jeep motor, a propane tank heater, and a table saw. (Complaint, Ex.
C). The itemized list totaled $4,729.71. (Complaint, Ex. C). Appellant also attached a
copy of his handwritten eviction notice instructing Appellee to leave the West Street
property and leave all items there. (Complaint, Ex. B).
      {¶4}   The trial court held a trial on the complaint on January 25, 2022, where both
parties appeared pro se. The trial court found it was undisputed that the parties entered
into an agreement for Appellant to purchase dilapidated properties and for Appellee to
work on them at a rate of $10 per hour. Occasionally, Appellee would reside at one of
the properties. At issue here were properties located on Lewis Street and West Street.
Appellee was residing at the West Street property in a camper while he worked on the
renovations. Appellant presented a list of his damages and photographs of the West
Street property. The court found that Appellant was unable to meet his burden for many
of the items he alleged Appellee stole. It noted that Appellee testified that he left many
of the items in the house and Appellant was unable to verify if he had checked for them
or not. The court found that while both parties’ testimony contained some inconsistencies,
Appellant was unable to meet his burden of proof.         The court further found it was

Case No. 22 NO 0491
                                                                                        –3–

“unmoved” by Appellant’s allegation of vandalism as it appeared to be demolition work
for the remodeling Appellee was hired to do. Finally, the court found neither party
indicated who was responsible for trash services so the court could not hold Appellee
responsible for the trash on the work site. Thus, the court entered judgment in favor of
Appellee and dismissed the complaint.
       {¶5}   Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 23, 2022. He is
proceeding with this appeal pro se.
       {¶6}   Appellant’s appellate brief does not comply with several of the Ohio Rules
of Appellate Procedure. App.R. 9(B); App.R. 16(A). He does not cite any law nor does
he present any assignments of error.
       {¶7}   A pro se appellant is held to the same obligations and standards set forth in
the appellate rules that apply to all litigants. Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio
App.3d 357, 363, 676 N.E.2d 171 (8th Dist.1996). Despite Appellant's lack of compliance
with the Appellate Rules, in the interest of justice, we will consider his argument.
       {¶8}   As can be gleaned from his brief, Appellant’s argument is that the trial
court’s judgment is not supported by the weight of the evidence. He argues the trial court
failed to consider various receipts, photographs, and eyewitness testimony that he
believes proved his claims.
       {¶9}   The civil manifest weight of the evidence standard provides that judgments
supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of
the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight
of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578
(1978), syllabus. The reviewing court is obliged to presume that the findings of the trier
of fact are correct. Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80-81, 461
N.E.2d 1273 (1984). This presumption arises in part because the fact-finder occupies the
best position to watch the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice
inflections and to utilize these observations in weighing credibility. Id. at 80. A reviewing
court should not reverse a decision simply because its opinion differs from the finder of
fact's opinion concerning the credibility of the witnesses and evidence submitted. Id. at
81. “A finding of an error in law is a legitimate ground for reversal, but a difference of
opinion on credibility of witnesses and evidence is not.” Id.

Case No. 22 NO 0491
                                                                                           –4–

       {¶10} In order to review a claim that the trial court’s judgment is against the weight
of the evidence, this court would need to review the trial transcript.
       {¶11} Appellant failed to file a transcript of the trial for our review. The appellant
bears the burden of demonstrating error by reference to the record of the proceedings in
the trial court, and it is the appellant's duty to provide the reviewing court with a transcript.
App.R. 9(B). “When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors
are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to
those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower
court's proceedings and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199,
400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).
       {¶12} Appellant’s arguments are all based on the facts of the case and rely on
evidence that the trial court either considered or that he claims the court should have
considered. Given the lack of transcript of the trial in this case, we have no way to review
Appellant’s claims. Therefore, we have no choice but to presume the validity of the trial
court's judgment and affirm.
       {¶13} Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is without merit and is overruled.
       {¶14} For the reasons stated above, the trial court’s judgment is hereby affirmed.

Waite, J., concurs.
D’Apolito, P.J., concurs.

Case No. 22 NO 0491
[Cite as Sanford v. Griffin, 2023-Ohio-1917.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s argument is
overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Noble
County Court, Small Claims Division, Noble County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to be taxed
against the Appellant.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                        NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.