The Fifth Appellate District Court in Ohio has upheld a lower court’s decision in a case involving a rental property dispute between Harold Franks and Vera Thomas. The court affirmed the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court, which had ruled in favor of Franks, the property owner. Thomas, the tenant, appealed the decision, but the appellate court found her arguments unpersuasive.
Background of the Case
The case originated in the Canton Municipal Court. Harold Franks owned a rental property at 2026 2nd Street NE in Canton, Ohio. Vera Thomas and her son, Miles Clark, rented the property. Franks served Thomas and Clark with a Notice to Leave Premises on July 20, 2024, requiring them to vacate by August 1, 2024. When they didn’t leave, Franks filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer (eviction) and sought payment for unpaid rent and other damages.
A magistrate conducted a hearing on August 22, 2024. The magistrate recommended that the court order a writ of restitution, allowing Franks to regain possession of the property. The magistrate also continued the hearing to address the issue of monetary damages. The magistrate’s report included a warning to the defendants to maintain a current address with the court, as failure to do so could result in a default judgment.
Clark filed an objection to the magistrate’s report, claiming the landlord failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment. The trial court denied Clark’s objection and approved the magistrate’s report. Thomas, however, did not file any objections at that time.
Franks then requested a hearing on the issue of monetary damages. A notice of the hearing was sent by mail to Thomas at the rental property address, but the notice was returned marked “VACANT.” Franks subsequently provided the court with an updated address for Thomas, and the court sent a summons and an amended complaint via FedEx to her at the new address. The FedEx package was delivered and signed for.
A hearing was held on January 29, 2025. Thomas did not appear. The magistrate issued a report recommending judgment in favor of Franks for $4,051.00, plus interest and costs. Thomas then filed an objection to the magistrate’s report, which the trial court overruled. It is from this ruling that Thomas appealed.
The Appeal: Arguments and Court’s Findings
Thomas raised four assignments of error in her appeal, essentially arguing that the lower court made mistakes in its handling of the case.
* Assignment of Error I: Thomas claimed she didn’t receive proper notice of the proceedings, violating due process. She argued she was unaware of the magistrate’s report or the court’s judgment entry.
* Assignment of Error II: Thomas contended the court failed to recognize retaliatory charges by the landlord.
* Assignment of Error III: Thomas argued the court erred in awarding $4,051 without itemized evidence of damages beyond normal wear and tear.
* Assignment of Error IV: Thomas claimed the court ignored the landlord’s breach of his obligations to maintain the property in a habitable condition.
The appellate court addressed each of these arguments.
The court first pointed out that Thomas’s brief did not fully comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Specifically, it lacked proper references to the record and failed to include a clear statement of the issues. However, the court decided to review the appeal “in the interests of justice and finality.”
Regarding the first assignment of error (lack of notice), the court found that Thomas’s claim was not supported by the record. The court noted that Thomas had attended the initial hearing and was advised by the magistrate to maintain a current address. Despite this warning, she failed to do so. The court also pointed out that the summons and amended complaint were sent to her updated address via FedEx and signed for. The court concluded that any lack of notice was due to Thomas’s failure to keep her address current, not the fault of the court. The court therefore overruled this assignment of error.
The court then addressed the remaining assignments of error. However, it noted that Thomas had not provided transcripts of the hearings from the lower court. Without these transcripts, the appellate court was unable to review the evidence presented at those hearings. The court stated that it had “no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings” and affirmed the lower court’s decision, citing the legal precedent that without the necessary transcripts, the court must assume the lower court acted correctly. It also noted that it could not consider any new factual information provided in Thomas’s brief because it was not verified as being presented to the trial court.
As a result, the court overruled Thomas’s second, third, and fourth assignments of error.
The Outcome
The Fifth Appellate District Court affirmed the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court. The court found that Thomas had not demonstrated any reversible errors in the lower court’s rulings. The court ordered that costs be assessed to Thomas.