Akin v. Bushong
2017 Ohio 7333
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Akin sued Bushong in Franklin County Municipal Court small claims, alleging defective staining/finishing of a custom media center and seeking $3,000.
- A magistrate tried the case and on October 28, 2016 awarded Akin $1,300 plus costs and interest. The magistrate advised parties that Civ.R. 53(D)(3) requires timely, specific objections to preserve error on appeal.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and entered judgment on November 1, 2016.
- Bushong filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on November 18, 2016 (more than 14 days after the magistrate’s decision) and the trial court purported to deny those objections in a January 13, 2017 entry, noting the objections were untimely and no transcript was filed.
- Bushong filed a notice of appeal on February 10, 2017.
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Bushong neither timely objected to the magistrate’s decision nor timely appealed the November 1, 2016 final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Akin) | Defendant's Argument (Bushong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of trial judgment/admission of evidence | Akin sought damages for defective work and relied on magistrate finding | Bushong argued award was based on insufficient evidence and alleged bias/second hearing advantage to Akin | Court did not reach merits — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely objections/appeal |
| Timeliness of objections to magistrate | N/A (Akin relied on magistrate ruling) | Objections filed Nov. 18, 2016 (after 14-day Civ.R. 53 deadline) | Objections were untimely; trial court’s later ruling on them was a nullity |
| Ability to appeal after final judgment | Akin relied on magistrate-adopted judgment | Bushong filed notice of appeal Feb. 10, 2017 (more than 30 days after Nov. 1 judgment) | Appeal untimely under App.R. 4(A); appellate court lacks jurisdiction |
| Post-judgment garnishment/notice procedures | Akin obtained judgment and resulting collection | Bushong alleged money withdrawn without notice or hearing | Court did not address garnishment claims because jurisdictional defects precluded review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) (untimely objections treated as motion for reconsideration and are a nullity)