Court Opinion

ID: 9908024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 17:08:06.936444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:39.907908
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Helfrich v. Heinz, 2023-Ohio-4425.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                      LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAMES HELFRICH                                     JUDGES:
                                                   Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellant                        Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
                                                   Case No. 23 CA 0048
CAROLINE LARSON HEINZ, et al.

        Defendants-Appellees                       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                        Civil Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case
                                                No. 23 CVF 00289

JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         December 5, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant                         For Defendants-Appellees

JAMES HELFRICH                                  No Appearance
PRO SE
P. O. Box 921
Pataskala, Ohio 43062
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                          2

Wise, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant James Helfrich appeals the May 17, 2023, decision of the Licking

County Municipal Court following a bench trial, finding in his favor for unpaid rent and

damages to a rental property leased to Appellee Caroline Larson Heinz.

       {¶2}   Appellees Caroline Larson Heinz and Steven Larson have not filed a brief

in this matter.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶3}   On February 9, 2023, Appellant James Helfrich filed an action in the Licking

County Municipal Court alleging a claim for unpaid rent and damages to the rental

property that Appellee Caroline Larson Heinz leased from him.

       {¶4}   On March 16, 2023, Appellees filed their Answer and Counterclaim for

return of the security deposit. This counterclaim was later withdrawn at trial.

       {¶5}   On March 27, 2023, Appellant filed “Plaintiff’s Answer to Caroline Larson

Heinz and Steven Larson’s Counterclaim and Request for this Court to Sanction both

Defendants under Ohio Revised Code 2323.51 Upon Conclusion of this Action.”

       {¶6}   On April 27, 2023, the matter proceeded to trial. At trial, the trial court heard

testimony from Appellant James Helfrich, Caroline Larson Heinz, and Steven Larson, who

is Ms. Heinz’ father, attorney and co-signer on the lease. Appellant appeared pro se.

       {¶7}   At trial, Appellant testified as to the costs he incurred in this matter, which

included unpaid rent for one month and unpaid utility bills, professional carpet cleaning,

replacement carpet and carpet pad, and the cost of labor. He also testified that he

replaced a light globe, stove drip pans and a thermostat; the dirty condition of the linoleum

in the kitchen; and the cost of having the carpet professionally cleaned. (T. at 20-28).
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                       3

       {¶8}   Ms. Heinz testified that she cleaned the carpet with a carpet cleaner she

rented from Kroger. (T. at 40, 46). She further testified that there were no stove drip pans

missing, that she replaced 2 drip pans, and also replaced window blinds. (T. at 40). She

testified that she cleaned the linoleum floor as best she could, but that the flooring was

old. (T. at 40-45). She also testified that the original thermostat was broken so she

replaced it with a new electronic one. (T. at 41-42). She stated that she left the broken

one in a desk drawer in the kitchen. (T. at 45-46).

       {¶9}   Mr. Larson testified that he visited his daughter every month, and that she

kept the property in good shape. (T. at 48). He stated that he was no longer asking for

the return of the security deposit, and that he was withdrawing his counter claim. (T. at

53). He explained to the judge “I’m [sic] just a you know a lawyer thing file counter claims

…To try and settle cases.” (T. at 53).

       {¶10} By Judgment Entry filed May 17, 2023, the trial court found,

              Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the

       defendants owed him rent for one month in the amount of $910.00 and

       $100.00 late fee. He also proved he was entitled to damages for the

       following items:

              Carpet cleaning (as set out in the lease addendum) $197.34

              Water/Sewer bill $146.80

              Gas bill $79.41

              Electric bill $48.04

              Light globe $10.00
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                       4

             Plaintiffs other damages requests related to normal wear and tear or

      were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,

      judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,491.59. As

      plaintiff is entitled to the security deposit, defendant's owe plaintiff $481.59.

      {¶11} On May 30, 2023, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

      {¶12} By Judgment Entry filed May 31, 2023, the trial court denied the Motion for

Reconsideration.

      {¶13} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

      {¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING A NUMBER OF CLAIMS

FOR DAMAGES WHEN THERE WAS COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS

TO THE DAMAGES AND COSTS.

      {¶15} “II. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT HAVE A COST HEARING

THAT HELFRICH REQUESTED.

      {¶16} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING HELFRICH'S STANDARD

TO A BURDEN OF PROOF.”

                                                 I.

      {¶17} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

denying certain claims for damages and costs. We disagree.

      {¶18} 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 Constr. Co., 54 Ohio

St.2d 279, 280, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). When reviewing a judgment under a manifest
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                       5

weight standard, an appellate court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the

trier of fact are correct. State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d

1264, ¶ 24. Mere disagreement over the credibility of witnesses or evidence is not

sufficient reason to reverse a judgment. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio

St.3d 77, 81, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).

       {¶19} Appellant herein argues that the trial court should have allowed damages

for removal and replacement of the carpet and carpet padding, including hauling away

old carpet/padding, as well as the cost of labor for cleaning of the stove and refrigerator,

linoleum and tile floors, and bathroom (shower, tub and toilet). He claims he paid

someone $840 to do this work and to travel to the stores to pick up the materials, change

light globe and thermostat, etc.

       {¶20} In a case between a landlord and a tenant, a landlord is not entitled to

damages for repairs to a rental property where the damages resulted from reasonable

wear and tear. Bibler v. Nash, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5–05–09, 2005–Ohio–5036, ¶ 18.

       {¶21} Courts generally view the need for cleaning and repainting costs between

tenants, even for leases as short as one year, as the sole responsibility of the landlord.

See, e.g., Swartz v. Luker, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA91-07-051, 1991 WL 278243, 1991

Ohio App. LEXIS 6319 (Dec. 30, 1991) (finding cleaning and painting costs did not

constitute damage beyond ordinary wear and tear); see also Kelley v. Johnston, 4th Dist.

Gallia No. 01CA5, 2001-Ohio-2622 (finding carpet cleaning and painting costs did not

exceed ordinary wear and tear after a three and one-half year tenancy). Landlords

“cannot seek to hold [their tenants] responsible for its own required maintenance of the

premises. This is a normal cost of doing business.” Kovac v. Whay, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                        6

No. 65469, 1994 WL 581528, 6, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4720, 15 (Oct. 20, 1994); See

also Calanni v. Stowers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106618, 2018-Ohio-4025, ¶ 51.

       {¶22} Upon review of the transcript, we find that the trial judge was fully engaged

in the hearing. He asked Appellant questions, specifically seeking clarification or

explanation for estimated costs. Contrary to Appellant's assertion that the court “ignored

the fact that [Appellant] told (Appellee] to never touch the property and there was labor

extended.” (Appellant’s brief at 10). However, we find the trial court specifically addressed

the issue in the Judgment Entry, stating “Plaintiffs other damages requests related to

normal wear and tear or were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”

       {¶23} After a full review of the record, we conclude that Appellant and the trial

court simply disagree on the monetary amount for property damages. As this is not an

adequate basis for reversal, Seasons Coal, supra, we find Appellant's argument to be

without merit.

       {¶24} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 II.

       {¶25} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

not holding a cost hearing. We disagree.

       {¶26} Appellant herein included a request for sanctions pursuant to R.C.

§2323.51, which permits a trial court to award a party in a civil action who is adversely

affected by frivolous conduct court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable

expenses incurred in connection with the action. R.C. §2323.51(B)(1).

       {¶27} Upon review, we find that Appellant is not entitled to sanctions or a hearing

to determine attorney fees under R.C. §2323.51, because Appellant in this case is a pro
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                      7

se litigant. State ex rel. Freeman v. Wilkinson, 64 Ohio St.3d 516, 517-18, 597 N.E.2d

126 (1992). The Ohio Supreme Court clearly held that “R.C. 2323.51 provides for attorney

fees, not compensation for pro se litigants.” Id. at 517. See also Sallock v. Tillimon, 6th

Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1241, 2023-Ohio-3193, ¶ 31.

       {¶28} As it is undisputed that at all times Appellant herein was a pro se litigant,

and because attorney's fees can only be awarded to attorneys, we find Appellant was not

entitled to a hearing on his motion.

       {¶29} Appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken and the Court

overrules same.

                                               III.

       {¶30} In his third assignment of error, Appellant states the trial court erred in

“holding [Appellant’s] standard to a burden of proof.”

       {¶31} In this “Assignment of Error”, Appellant expresses his unhappiness with the

judicial system, including the trial court and this Court, and “points out its prejudice.”

(Appellant’s brief at 11).

       {¶32} Upon review, we find this assignment of error contains no legal argument.

Appellant's arguments are unclear, particularly as these issues are not discussed within

an appropriate assignment of error. Appellant also does not specify which local rules,

statutory provisions, or case law on which he predicates his arguments.

       {¶33} As Appellant has failed to make any legal argument under this assigned

error, we have nothing to address.
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048                                                     8

      {¶34} Appellant’s third assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.

      {¶35} The decision of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio, is affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Hoffman, P. J., and

Delaney, J., concur.

JWW/kw 1128