Barnosky v. Barnosky, 2022 Ohio 2928

Plaintiff John E. Barnosky, Jr. sued seeking return or damages for tools, equipment, guns and other items allegedly stored in a barn on his father’s Portage County farm; claim of conversion was asserted against brother Charles Barnosky (trustee of a family trust).
Some tools were gifted to John Jr. by their uncle Jim Burke in 2010; others were purchased by John Jr.; he stored them on the farm with his father's permission and used them through 2018–2019.
After their father moved and created trusts in 2019, Charles (initially living on the property, later trustee) denied John Jr. access and posted no-trespassing messages; Charles claimed the tools had been sold to their father and thus belonged to the trust.
A magistrate held a bench trial, found John Jr. owned the tools, concluded Charles wrongfully exerted control, and awarded John Jr. access to retrieve the items or, if disposed, a $48,910 money judgment; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Charles objected, lost in the trial court, and appealed raising four assignments: manifest weight/dominion, insufficiency of ownership evidence, lack of proof items were at the farm, and improper/hearsay valuation testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the judgment against the manifest weight of the evidence on dominion/control?	John Jr.: Charles excluded him and refused access, showing wrongful dominion.	Charles: He wasn't trustee when exclusion began; no demand was made while he served as trustee.	Affirmed — magistrate credited evidence Charles exercised dominion; demand while trustee not required.
2. Did plaintiff present sufficient evidence of ownership?	John Jr.: Testified he owned or was gifted the tools; Burke corroborated the gift; Exhibit lists tools.	Charles: No receipts, bills of sale, or documentary proof; possible abandonment.	Affirmed — magistrate found John Jr. credible; lack of documentary proof not fatal.
3. Was there sufficient proof the items were located at the farm?	John Jr.: Exhibit A lists items at the farm and he testified they remained there after exclusion.	Charles: Long time gap; John Jr. had not inspected items recently and took some items when out of state.	Affirmed — magistrate credited Exhibit A and testimony as reliable enough.
4. Was valuation testimony inadmissible hearsay or improper lay opinion?	John Jr.: As owner, he can opine to value; he researched values.	Charles: Value based on internet research (hearsay) and plaintiff not qualified as an expert.	Affirmed — no trial objection preserved on appeal; owner-opinion doctrine and lack of plain-error showing.

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (establishes manifest‑weight standard for civil bench trials)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (definition and elements of conversion)
Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. O’Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489 (conversion defined as wrongful dominion or withholding under claim inconsistent with owner’s rights)
Ohio Tel. Equip. & Sales, Inc. v. Hadler Realty Co., 24 Ohio App.3d 91 (discusses when demand/refusal is required to establish conversion)
Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 264 (owner‑opinion rule for valuation of property)
Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indem. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 (owners competent to give opinion of personal property value)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain‑error doctrine in civil appeals is narrowly applied)
Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220 (example of egregious error warranting reversal under plain‑error)