2017 Ohio 2714
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Michelle and Michael Lake leased a house and pole barn from Lee Love starting in 2003; Lakes later purchased the property in April 2013.
- Love stored personal property in the pole barn (including a 1992 Rinker boat and 1996 Kawasaki jet ski) and later lived in the pole barn; Lakes used a Craftsman lawn mower that Love purchased in 2003.
- After the Lakes bought the property, parties agreed Love would vacate but could leave belongings in the pole barn temporarily; Love left items in June 2013 and allegedly removed some items (tools, lawn mower) in August 2013.
- In late 2014 the Lakes moved Love’s remaining items out of the insulated pole barn into the shed, onto the boat, and moved the boat and jet ski outside; Love learned they were outside by Nov. 17, 2014 and retrieved most items in Jan–Feb 2015.
- Michael sued Love for conversion (small-claims → common pleas) seeking $2,072 for items Love took; Love counterclaimed/third‑partied for conversion and unjust enrichment seeking >$25,000 for alleged damage to boat, jet ski, furniture, etc.
- Magistrate awarded Michael $2,072 and denied Love’s claims, finding Lakes more credible and that Love failed to mitigate damages; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Love failed to mitigate damages for property left on Lakes’ land | Lakes: Love delayed retrieval and took no reasonable steps after learning items were outside; his conduct caused delay | Love: He lacked notice in time to prevent damage and thus had no duty to mitigate | Court: Love had notice (by Nov. 17, 2014) and could have taken ordinary steps; his hostility and conduct impeded retrieval — failed to mitigate |
| Whether Love proved entitlement to damages by preponderance | Lakes: Love’s damage claims were speculative and unsupported by proof | Love: He provided evidence of original cost, insurance values, and claimed investments in repairs/upgrades | Court: Credibility favored Lakes; Love’s figures speculative and inconsistent (seeking more than original purchase) — no recovery |
| Whether award to Michael ($2,072) was supported by evidence | Michael: Presented itemized list and valuations for items taken | Love: Challenged inclusion of $1,500 lawn mower value because Michael admitted he didn’t purchase it | Court: Trial court found mower was gifted to Lakes and award was supported; Love forfeited other challenges by not objecting below |
| Procedural forfeiture of issues not objected to before trial court | Lakes: Magistrate’s factual findings adopted where no specific objections | Love: Sought appellate review on grounds not raised in magistrate objections | Court: Failure to raise specific Civ.R. 53 objections forfeited appellate review except plain error; plain error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 87 Ohio St.3d 270 (1999) (a party has a duty to mitigate damages and may not recover avoidable losses)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (civil plain‑error standard is narrowly applied only in exceptional circumstances)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (1982) (plain‑error discussion cited for limits on applying that doctrine)