Lubanovich v. McGlocklin
2015 Ohio 4618
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Edward and Nancy Lubanovich hired Stacy McGlocklin to convert a crawl space into a full basement; the basement's north wall collapsed.
- The Lubanoviches sued for negligence; the Wadsworth Municipal Court found McGlocklin liable and awarded $6,239 in damages.
- On appeal (McGlocklin I) this Court affirmed liability but reversed the damages award for lack of reasonable certainty and remanded for recalculation.
- On remand the trial court credited McGlocklin's testimony that he would have charged $2,500 to rebuild the wall (treated as reasonable labor cost) and admitted receipts showing $767.97 in materials, awarding $3,267.97 plus 3% interest from the original judgment date.
- McGlocklin appealed, arguing (1) the damages lacked reasonable certainty and relied on improperly admitted exhibits and (2) interest should run only from the date of the revised award.
- The Court affirmed: damages were supported by the record and interest properly ran from the original judgment date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were damages established with reasonable certainty? | Lubanoviches: receipts and defendant's testimony reasonably establish labor and materials costs. | McGlocklin: $2,500 figure encompassed both labor and materials; receipts are unreliable, may include unrelated repairs, and were not properly admitted. | Court held damages reasonable: $2,500 (labor) supported by defendant's testimony; receipts authenticated and admitted, no record evidence showing unrelated repairs. |
| Were defense exhibits (receipts) properly considered? | Lubanoviches: receipts were introduced and authenticated at trial. | McGlocklin: trial court failed to explicitly admit each exhibit, so reliance on them was error. | Court held receipts were introduced by defendant, not objected to, and the court admitted them; no plain error shown. |
| Should post-judgment interest run from original judgment date or remand date? | Lubanoviches: interest should run from original judgment to put them in same position as if correct judgment had been entered initially. | McGlocklin: interest should run only from date of revised award. | Court held interest accrues from original judgment date under R.C. 1343.03 and precedent placing plaintiff in same position as if correct judgment had been entered. |
| Was the trial court's recalculated award against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Lubanoviches: recalculated award reflects reasonable restoration costs and is supported by record. | McGlocklin: award duplicates materials cost, relies on plaintiffs' self-serving testimony, and includes unrelated repairs. | Court held award not against manifest weight; trial court did not clearly lose its way and record lacks evidence that receipts covered unrelated work. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for weighing manifest-weight challenges in civil cases)
- Horrisberger v. Mohlmaster, 102 Ohio App.3d 494 (9th Dist. 1995) (categories of recoverable damages for temporary injury to real property)
- Henderson v. Spring Run Allotment, 99 Ohio App.3d 633 (9th Dist. 1995) (requirement that damages be proved with reasonable certainty)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error review and preservation of objections to evidentiary rulings)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 59 Ohio App.3d 3 (6th Dist. 1989) (interest may run from original judgment despite reduction on appeal)
- Bingamon v. Curren, 83 Ohio App.3d 711 (2d Dist. 1992) (post-judgment interest principles)
- Sharp v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 307 (1995) (distinguishing cases where liability determination is reversed and retrial affects interest accrual)