Lambert's Pop A Top, L.L.C.. v. Mills
2017 Ohio 8073
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2015 Lambert’s Pop A Top, LLC and Tammy Lambert purchased a bar business (Mills Tavern) and leased the building at 105/150 Nassau St. E. from Mark and Frances Mills. Purchase price for the business was $25,000; $10,000 was held in escrow pending transfer of the liquor license.
- At closing the parties knew the liquor permit was held by Mike and Wanda Kirby and that the permit had an unresolved liquor-code issue; transfer required resolution and Attorney General involvement. The purchase agreement did not set a deadline or specify who must effect the permit transfer.
- Lambert operated under a management agreement with Kirby while awaiting the permit transfer; Mills was expected to facilitate transfer but was not the holder of the license. A transfer/application process occurred and Lambert obtained a liquor permit in May 2016 (dispute whether it was a transfer or a new license).
- Lambert alleged Mills breached the sale agreement by failing to transfer the liquor permit, failed to repair a leaking/collapsed roof (breach of lease/statutory landlord duties), and withheld rent (deposited with counsel). She sued Mills and Kirby on multiple claims; Mills counterclaimed for breach of the lease.
- After a bench trial the magistrate ruled for Mills on all claims and awarded him $20,800. The trial court overruled Lambert’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and entered judgment for Mills. Lambert appealed alleging the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court failed to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly failed to conduct de novo review of magistrate’s decision | Lambert contends the trial court simply adopted the magistrate’s decision and did not independently review the evidence/transcript | Mills contends the trial court expressly reviewed the transcript and arguments and thus applied the correct de novo standard | Court presumed correct standard applied; no affirmative demonstration of failure to perform de novo review, so issue rejected |
| Whether judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence on the liquor-permit breach claim | Lambert argues Mills breached the purchase agreement by failing to transfer the liquor permit and thus escrow funds should be withheld | Mills argues the agreement did not set a transfer deadline or require transfer via him; a permit issue existed but Lambert ultimately obtained a permit | Court held evidence supported that Mills did not breach; permit was obtained and the agreement had no deadline or specified transferor |
| Whether Mills breached lease/statutory landlord duties by failing to repair roof | Lambert argues roof leaked/collapsed and Mills failed to repair, justifying rent withholding | Mills contends he attempted repairs and denied refusing to fix the roof; Lambert did not follow statutory procedures for withholding rent | Court found Mills attempted repair, Lambert did not comply with R.C. 5321.07 procedures for withholding rent, so no breach relief for Lambert |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in overruling objections and adopting magistrate | Lambert asserts trial court’s adoption created manifest miscarriage of justice | Mills contends trial court reviewed the transcript and arguments and reasonably exercised discretion | Court found no abuse of discretion; magistrate’s findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist. 1983) (purpose of accelerated calendar appeals and brief/conclusory dispositions)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases parallels Thompkins)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (defining manifest-weight standard referenced for civil review)
- Phillips v. Phillips, 25 N.E.3d 271 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must conduct de novo review of magistrate report when ruling on objections)
- DeSantis v. Soller, 70 Ohio App.3d 226 (10th Dist. 1990) (trial court’s de novo duty when reviewing a magistrate/referee report)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review)