Petrovich v. Auto Repair, Inc.
2017 Ohio 8731
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- Petrovich (pro se) sued Auto Repair in Berea Municipal Court small-claims division for damage to his car, rental expenses, and lost wages after a June 13, 2016 incident.
- Magistrate heard the case on October 5, 2016, and issued a decision finding Petrovich failed to prove his claims; the decision contained no specific factual findings.
- The court mailed the magistrate’s decision to an incorrect address (3100 Laurent Dr. instead of 6100 Laurent Dr.); the mailing was returned and the court did not re-serve Petrovich.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on October 26, 2016, noting no objections had been filed. Petrovich filed a notice of appeal on November 28, 2016.
- Petrovich attempted to provide an App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence because no hearing DVD existed; the trial court refused to approve it and this court struck it as not settled/approved.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the municipal court’s mis-mailing and failure to ensure notice deprived Petrovich of procedural due process and the opportunity to object under Civ.R. 53.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petrovich was denied procedural due process when he did not receive the magistrate's decision and thus could not timely object | Petrovich: never received the decision due to court's incorrect mailing; was thus denied the opportunity to object | Auto Repair: lack of objections waives issues on appeal except plain error | Held: Court found the court’s mis-mailing and inaction denied Petrovich due process; reversal and remand allowed objection process to proceed |
| Whether App.R. 9(C) statement may substitute for a trial transcript where the party failed to object in the trial court and no transcript existed | Petrovich: filed App.R. 9(C) statement to supply the record because hearing recording unavailable | Auto Repair: App.R. 9(C) statement is improper because Civ.R. 53 requires objections and a transcript/affidavit in trial court first | Held: App.R. 9(C) statement was not appropriate to cure failure to follow Civ.R. 53; but trial court erred in refusing to settle/approve the submitted statement without proper handling — court remanded to allow magistrate findings, objections, and filing of affidavit where transcript unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims, 143 Ohio St.3d 493, 2015-Ohio-2003, 39 N.E.3d 1220 (clarifying appellate courts cannot consider evidence the trial court did not have when deciding the case)
- Joiner v. Illuminating Co., 55 Ohio App.2d 187 (8th Dist. 1978) (trial court must settle and approve App.R. 9(C) statement of proceedings when properly submitted)