2019 Ohio 209
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In Nov. 2016, Ted Chuparkoff sued Ohio Title Loans after its repossession of a vehicle allegedly resulted in the removal of personal property (garage door opener, client files) belonging to Chuparkoff. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Ohio Title Loans was served but did not respond; Chuparkoff moved for and obtained a default judgment on liability, leaving damages to be determined at a magistrate hearing.
- At the damages hearing Chuparkoff testified about lost items and estimated ~$400 to replace the garage door opener; he did not quantify the value of client files.
- The magistrate found Chuparkoff failed to prove any damages; the trial court overruled objections but awarded nominal damages of $10 and declined to consider punitive damages.
- Chuparkoff appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding Chuparkoff could not recover on an unjust-enrichment theory he had not pleaded, but the trial court erred in rejecting his unrefuted testimony about the $400 replacement cost and in refusing to consider punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved compensatory damages for conversion | Chuparkoff testified he lost a garage door opener (≈$400) and client files; this suffices to prove damages | Ohio Title Loans did not contest liability (default); trial court found testimony insufficient without documentation | Court: Magistrate/trial court erred in rejecting unrefuted testimony about $400; award of $10 was against manifest weight as to garage opener damages |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded unjust enrichment and could recover on default judgment | Chuparkoff sought $11,525 as unjust enrichment (vehicle retained for more than lien value, repairs, gas) | Defendant failed to answer; but default judgment cannot supply liability for claims not pleaded | Court: Chuparkoff failed to plead unjust enrichment; cannot recover on that theory under Civ.R.55 |
| Whether punitive damages should have been considered after default judgment | Chuparkoff alleged intentional, punitive acts in complaint and requested punitive damages > $25,000; testified to willful conduct | Trial court declined to address punitive damages, saying plaintiff failed to cite legal standard or prove actual damages | Court: Trial court erred to refuse consideration; after remand it must determine whether punitive damages are appropriate (actual damages issue tied to first issue) |
| Standard of review for damages and magistrate decision | N/A — plaintiff argues trial court’s damages ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Trial court relied on magistrate and required corroboration of testimony | Court: Reviews factual weight for manifest injustice; applies de novo for legal questions (e.g., punitive-damage entitlement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- Whetstone v. Binner, 146 Ohio St.3d 395 (2016) (default judgment establishes liability; damages hearing follows)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (1986) (default judgment principles: liability is confessed when defendant fails to defend)
- Reese v. Proppe, 3 Ohio App.3d 103 (1981) (default arises only when defendant fails to contest allegations)
- DeSantis v. Soller, 70 Ohio App.3d 226 (1991) (trial court’s limited ability to assess credibility from transcript of magistrate hearing)