Wolkoff v. Bloom Bros. Supply, Inc.
2013 Ohio 2403
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wolkoffs sued Bloom Brothers in Chardon Municipal Court for breach of contract, fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA).
- Wolkoffs alleged Bloom promised a credit for returning the LG washer in exchange for purchasing an Electrolux washer; credit was never issued.
- Two magistrates issued decisions: Bond initially ruled for Bloom; D’Angelo later recommended reversing Bond and awarding compensatory and treble damages.
- Bloom challenged the proceedings, arguing the second magistrate lacked authority to rule on objections to the first magistrate’s decision. The Wolkoffs did not provide a transcript with objections as required.
- The municipal court adopted the second magistrate’s decision; Bloom appealed, and the Wolkoffs cross-appealed for attorney’s fees and noneconomic damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to rule on objections | Wolkoffs contend the court should rule on objections to the magistrate’s decision. | Bloom argues a magistrate cannot rule on objections under Civ.R. 53(D)(4). | Magistrate lacked authority; remand for ruling on objections. |
| Negligent misrepresentation under CSPA | Wolkoffs claim negligent misrepresentation supports CSPA liability and treble damages. | Bloom contends the misrepresentation, if any, does not amount to a deceptive act under CSPA. | Merits to be reconsidered on remand; not decided due to procedural issue. |
| Treble damages and intent under CSPA | Wolkoffs seek treble damages for alleged deceptive act. | Bloom disputes the predicate intent for a deceptive act. | Remand to address objections; merits not resolved here. |
| Noneconomic damages and attorney’s fees | Wolkoffs seek noneconomic damages and attorney’s fees under CSPA. | Bloom argues no basis for noneconomic damages or fees. | Remand to proper proceedings following objections; merits not decided here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cronin v. Cronin, 11th Dist. No. 2011-L-134, 2012-Ohio-5592 (11th Dist. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing magistrate decisions)
- Kean v. Kean, 11th Dist. No. 2005-T-0079, 2006-Ohio-3222 (11th Dist. 2006) (magistrate lacked authority to rule on objections under Civ.R. 53)
- King v. King, 11th Dist. Nos. 2012-G-3068 and 2012-G-3079, 2013-Ohio-2038 (11th Dist. 2013) (review of magistrate decisions when objections are raised; transcript/affidavit requirement)