{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee entered into a one-year lease in September 1999, wherein appellee became a roommate in a house owned by appellant. The lease provided that it would continue on a month-to-month tenancy if appellee remained at the premises after the lease's original term expired. A dispute between appellant and appellee arose in June 2003, and appellee vacated the premises on or about June 24, 2003. On July 1, 2003, appellant filed this action in small claims court, alleging that appellee breached the terms of the lease by not providing proper notice before vacating the premises. Aрpellant claims appellee owes $2,388.18 in unpaid rent, an unpaid phone bill, and costs to restore the leased premises to its original сondition.
{¶ 3} On August 4, 2003, a trial was conducted before a magistrate. On October 8, 2003, the magistrate filed a decision which included findings of fact and conclusions оf law. The magistrate found that after weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses, appellee had not provided appеllant with proper notice of termination of the lease, and therefore found that appellee owed appellant $400 for July's rent. The magistrate additionally found that appellee owed appellant $95.38 for an unpaid phone bill. The magistrate further determined that apрellee had paid appellant $200 as a security deposit. Finally, the court found that appellant had confiscated a computer belonging to appellee, which was valued at $300. In determining damages, the magistrate recommended that the combined value of the computer and the security deposit more than offset any damages that appellant proved by a preponderance of the evidenсe. The magistrate therefore recommended that the court enter judgment in favor of appellee, and recommended the dismissal of appellant's complaint. On October 9, 2003, the trial court signed an entry adopting the magistrate's decision, and it was journalized on October 14, 2003. On October 14, 2003, appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision. No transcript was requested by appellant, nor was one filed for review by thе trial court. The trial court overruled appellant's objections by journal entry filed on November 18, 2003, and this appeal ensued.
{¶ 4} Appellant sets forth four assignments of error:
I. The Trial Court errеd in affirming the Magistrate's Decision in not determining that Defendant-Appellee abandoned her computer when she left it in the premises after she mоved out.
II. The Trial Court erred in affirming the Magistrate's Decision in arbitrarily assigning a value to a computer to use as an offset for the amount Defendаnt-Appellee owes to Plaintiff-Appellant.
III. The Trial Court erred in affirming the Magistrate's Decision in applying the amount of a security deposit whеn Plaintiff-Appellant already returned the security deposit to Defendant-Appellee.
IV. The Trial Court erred in affirming the Magistrate's Decision in applying an offset to dismiss Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint when no counterclaim or request for recovery by Defendant-Appellee was before the Court.
{¶ 5} Any objection to a magistrate's findings of fact shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relеvant to that fact, or by an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(c). Appellant must support a claim of factual error in a magistrate's decision with specific references to the record. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below. Fields v. Stange, Franklin App. No. 03AP-48,
{¶ 6} Because appellant failed to submit a transcript to the trial court with her objections, this сourt may not consider the transcript that appellant submitted with the appellate record.1 Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1428,
{¶ 7} Appellant's first assignment of error submits the magistrate erred by not declaring the appellee's computer was abandoned property. Appellant's second assignment of error contends the trial court erred in assigning a value to the computer to offset part of the amount appellee owed appellant. Appellant's third assignment of error submits the magistrate erred in applying the security deposit as an offset. Each of these assignments of error is based on findings of fact, which may not be challenged on appeal as no transcript was provided to the trial court. Appellant's first three assignments of error are therefore overruled.
{¶ 8} Appellant's fourth assignment of error сlaims the magistrate erred by applying an offset to plaintiff's claim, as no counterclaim was before the court. In small claims court, the fact that no pleading in the record is identified as a counterclaim does not necessarily mean a counterclaim was not before the magistrate.
{¶ 9} R.C.
{¶ 10} Without a transcript, we are unable to determine if appellant raised an objection or claimed unfair surprise at trial when the issue of offset was raised by appellee. In the absence of any affirmative evidence to the contrary, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below. Fields, supra, citingKnapp, at 199. Accordingly, we must overrule appellant's fourth assignment of error.
{¶ 11} Having overruled appellant's four assignments of error, we hereby affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Petree and Klatt, JJ., concur.