Rosett v. Holmes, 2023 Ohio 606

Landlord Wendy Rosett leased a Cleveland Heights house to Cortni Holmes and Maurice Johnson from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 for $1,200/month plus utilities.
Beginning November 2020 Holmes paid rent into the municipal court escrow; Holmes stopped paying escrow or Rosett in February 2021.
Rosett filed a forcible entry and detainer action in Feb. 2021 and served a three-day notice; the FED claim was later dismissed after an agreed judgment entry setting a move-out date.
Holmes filed a pro se answer and counterclaim alleging the house was uninhabitable and that the city ordered escrowed rent until repairs were made.
A magistrate heard the case (Feb. 16, 2022) and recommended judgment for Rosett for $3,162.02; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on April 4, 2022, entering judgment against Holmes and Maurice Johnson jointly and severally.
Holmes appealed, raising three assignments: (1) trial court failed to rule on her unopposed summary-judgment motion, (2) counterclaim was not adjudicated denying due process, and (3) monetary judgment entered without proper consideration of her counterclaim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rosett)	Defendant's Argument (Holmes)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not granting Holmes’s unopposed motion for summary judgment	Trial court properly denied the motion because summary judgment requires absence of genuine factual disputes	Motion was unopposed and thus should have been granted; denial violated due process	Denied: an unopposed motion is not automatically granted; genuine issues of material fact existed, so denial was proper
Whether the trial court failed to consider Holmes’s counterclaim	The court considered the counterclaim; record and magistrate decision support judgment	Counterclaim merits were not adjudicated, denying a fair hearing	Overruled: trial court considered counterclaim; because Holmes did not provide a transcript, regularity of proceedings is presumed and factual attacks are waived
Whether the monetary judgment improperly disregarded Holmes’s counterclaim/rights	Judgment followed the magistrate’s recommendations and procedure	Judgment should have been offset or decided for Holmes on counterclaim	Affirmed: Holmes failed to supply required transcript/affidavit to challenge factual findings; judgment stands

Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist. 1983) (purpose and brevity of accelerated appeals)
Newman v. Al Castrucci Ford Sales, Inc., 54 Ohio App.3d 166 (1st Dist. 1988) (an unruled motion is deemed denied)
Solon v. Solon Baptist Temple, Inc., 8 Ohio App.3d 347 (8th Dist. 1982) (same)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment movant bears initial burden to show no genuine issue)
Morris v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 45 (1988) (unopposed summary-judgment motion still requires that reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion)
Toledo's Great E. Shoppers City, Inc. v. Abde's Black Angus Steak House No. III, Inc., 24 Ohio St.3d 198 (1986) (same principle regarding unopposed motions)
Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66 (1985) (failure to respond to requests for admissions constitutes admissions)
T & S Lumber Co. v. Alta Constr. Co., 19 Ohio App.3d 241 (8th Dist. 1984) (admissions by failure to respond are "written admissions" for Civ.R. 56)
Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (appellant bears burden to provide transcript when necessary to decide issues on appeal)
Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (1993) (presumption of regularity in trial court proceedings when record is incomplete)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (same; limited review when transcript not provided)