State v. Karabinos
2017 Ohio 7334
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- State sued Karabinos for Consumer Protection Act violations related to auto title defects (April 1, 2015).
- Karabinos sought bankruptcy relief; State argued bankruptcy did not preclude relief; case was reactivated.
- Karabinos answered on March 18, 2016 after leave; suit against his affiliated company was dismissed for improper service; partial summary judgment on liability was entered for the State.
- A magistrate held a January 12, 2017 bench trial on damages; Karabinos offered no testimony, relying on three bankruptcy-related exhibits; magistrate held the fund reimbursement damages were not discharged in bankruptcy.
- After the magistrate’s decision, Karabinos did not timely object, did not obtain a transcript, and did not request plain-error review; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; the appellate court later concluded the appeal was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in enforcing a money judgment against Karabinos. | Karabinos | State | Waived; no objections or transcript; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52 (Ohio 2000) (cannot raise objections to magistrate’s conclusions absent Civ.R. 53(D)(3) objections)
- State ex rel. Findlay Indus. v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 121 Ohio St.3d 517 (Ohio 2009) (cannot challenge adopted findings without proper objections)
- Lavelle v. Lavelle, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-159, 2012-Ohio-6197 (Ohio 2012) (failure to object limits appellate review to plain error)
- Blevins v. Blevins, 2014-Ohio-3933 (Ohio 2014) (absence of transcript requires presumption of regularity in proceedings)