Arotin v. Nickels, 2017 Ohio 1003

Arotin sued Nickels and Resor in small claims for $3,000 for alleged damage to rental property; she presented an itemized damage list, photographs, and repair bills totaling $2,968.47.
A magistrate heard the case on June 6, 2016, admitted Arotin’s exhibits, and issued a decision awarding $2,968.47.
Defendants filed objections to the magistrate’s decision but did not file a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing in support of those objections.
The trial court reviewed the magistrate’s decision and objections, found no error or defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, overruled the objections, and entered judgment for Arotin.
On appeal, defendants challenged factual findings (e.g., repair charges, mold remediation, pet urine cleaning) and raised new factual arguments for the first time on appeal; the court analyzed whether those challenges were waived for failure to provide a hearing transcript.

Issue	Arotin's Argument	Nickels/Resor's Argument	Held
Whether defendants may challenge magistrate factual findings without filing a transcript	Magistrate findings should be accepted where objectors fail to provide transcript	Objectors disputed magistrate’s factual findings but provided no transcript	Defendants waived factual challenges by failing to file the transcript; magistrate’s facts accepted
Whether objections asserting factual disputes require transcript support	Trial court may independently review legal issues but must accept factual findings without transcript	Objections raised factual disputes (repair necessity, amounts, source of pet damage)	Factual objections not supported by transcript are waived
Whether new factual arguments raised for first time on appeal are reviewable	Arotin: new factual claims not properly raised below are forfeited	Defendants raised additional factual claims on appeal (e.g., late itemized security deposit deduction)	New factual arguments not raised below and unsupported by transcript are waived
Whether trial court abused its discretion in adopting magistrate decision	Arotin: no abuse; magistrate supported by evidence	Defendants: trial court erred in entering judgment and excluding their evidence	No abuse of discretion found; no clear error on face of magistrate decision

Wade v. Wade, 113 Ohio App.3d 414 (11th Dist.) (where transcript is omitted, trial court must accept magistrate factual findings)
State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728 (Ohio 1995) (when no transcript provided, trial court reviews only legal conclusions based on magistrate’s factual findings)