Figetakis v. My Pillow, Inc.
2022 Ohio 1078
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Figetakis bought two pillows from My Pillow, Inc. under a "buy one get one free" promotion; both arrived damaged.
- My Pillow sent a replacement pillow and offered an additional replacement; Figetakis sought a full refund under a 60‑day money‑back guarantee.
- Figetakis sued in Akron Municipal Court small claims; a magistrate found the company honored its warranty and recommended judgment for defendants.
- The trial court initially adopted the magistrate's decision but an earlier appeal was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.
- On remand the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc judgment granting judgment for defendants; Figetakis appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of first assignment of error | Figetakis asserted errors of law/fact and referenced abuse of process/malicious prosecution | Magistrate's findings were supported; appellant must identify and argue specific errors | Overruled — Figetakis failed to meet appellate briefing burden and did not identify errors |
| 2. Whether court should have applied 60‑day money‑back guarantee instead of 10‑year warranty | Figetakis: court erred by relying on 10‑year warranty and not awarding full refund under 60‑day guarantee | My Pillow: brochure included both guarantees; company honored warranty by sending replacements; refund not warranted because pillows not returned | Overruled — court considered the 60‑day guarantee but found no entitlement to full refund; no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Whether trial court entered an independent final judgment after magistrate | Figetakis: trial court only ruled on objections and failed to independently enter judgment | Defendants: trial court later corrected error on remand and entered independent judgment for defendants | Overruled — on remand trial court entered an independent final judgment in favor of defendants |
| 4. Whether default judgment against Mike Lindell should have been entered under Civ.R. 55 | Figetakis: Lindell failed to answer; default judgment warranted | Defendants: Civ.R. 55 is inapplicable in small claims; answers not required in small claims | Overruled — no abuse of discretion; default judgment inapplicable in small claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines "abuse of discretion" as more than error of law or judgment)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review does not permit substitution of court's judgment for trial court's)
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 72 Ohio St.3d 320 (1995) (appellate court has discretion to impose sanctions for frivolous appeals)
- Talbott v. Fountas, 16 Ohio App.3d 226 (10th Dist. 1984) (appeal is frivolous when it presents no reasonable question for review)