Thomas R. Lane v. U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee et al.
No. 20AP-335
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 3, 2021
2021-Ohio-1891
(C.P.C. No. 19CV-7293) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on June 3, 2021
On brief: Thomas R. Lane, pro se. Argued: Thomas R. Lane.
On brief: Blank Rome, LLP, William L. Purtell, and John R. Wirthlin, for appellee U.S. Bank, N.A. Argued: William L. Purtell.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Thomas R. Lane, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motions for default judgment and dismissing with prejudice his action against defendants-appellees, U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee (“U.S. Bank“), and GMAC Mortgage LLC (“GMAC“). For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In September 2019, Lane initiated this action against U.S. Bank and GMAC, asserting a single claim of fraud. Lane alleged that appellees “entered false and misleading statements into their Appellee Brief[,]” that these statements “caused the trial court and the appeals court to decide without having a formal trial[,]” and that this fraudulent conduct caused significant injury to him. (Sept. 9, 2019 Compl. at 1-2.) Lane prayed for $10 million
{¶ 3} In her decision, the magistrate outlined her findings of fact and conclusions of law, including her conclusion that, based on the evidence presented, Lane failed to satisfy all elements necessary to prove a fraud claim against appellees. Consequently, the magistrate recommended the trial court deny Lane‘s default judgment motions and dismiss the matter with prejudice. Lane filed a “motion for reconsideration,” which the trial court construed as objections to the magistrate‘s decision. In reviewing Lane‘s objections, the trial court noted that Lane failed to file a copy of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing before the magistrate. Finding no error of law or other defect in the magistrate‘s decision, the trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision in its entirety. Accordingly, the trial court denied Lane‘s default judgment motions and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
{¶ 4} Lane timely appeals.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 5} Lane assigns the following errors for our review:
- [1.] Trial court erred in not granting appellants motion for default judgement on 10-16-2019 GMAC LLC, 10-23-2019 U.S Bank 10-23-19 and scheduling an evidentiary hearing 12-4-2019
- [2.] 4Trial Court erred in denying appellants request for default judgement at a civil rule 55 evidentiary hearing held on Dec. 4, 2019. Pursuant on the grounds that the plaintiff did not establish the requisite elements for fraud.
- [3.] Trial court erred in denying appellants request for reconsideration pursuant to Ohio civil rule 124-15-05. The Court made the decision pursuant to civil rule 53.
[4.] Local rule 23.01 Trial procedure shall be in accordance with statute or rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Default judgements are according to Ohio civil rule (55)
(Sic passim.)
III. Discussion
{¶ 6} Collectively, Lane‘s assignments of error allege the trial court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his requests for default judgment and in denying those requests. These assignments of error lack merit.
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} Here, Lane asserted a claim of fraud against appellees. Upon reviewing the complaint, the trial court deemed it necessary to require Lane to substantiate this claim with evidence, and it referred the matter to a magistrate to hold an evidentiary hearing.
{¶ 9} We also reject Lane‘s argument the trial court erred in denying his motions for default judgment. The magistrate found Lane failed to present at the
{¶ 10} Pursuant to
{¶ 11} In this appeal, Lane fails to identify any error in the trial court‘s analysis and disposition of his motions for default judgment. His central argument is the trial court erred in not granting default judgment as a matter of law because appellees did not answer or otherwise file a response in defense of the complaint. But, as discussed above, Lane fails to demonstrate the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in requiring Lane to substantiate his fraud claim at an evidentiary hearing. And to the extent he challenges the magistrate‘s findings of fact adopted by the trial court, we, like the trial court, must presume those findings were correct and supported by the evidence in the absence of a filed transcript of the evidentiary hearing. James v. My Cute Car, LLC, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-603, 2017-Ohio-1291, ¶ 15. The remainder of Lane‘s arguments in his appellate brief are either wholly impertinent to the trial court proceedings or lack any development to warrant discussion. For these reasons, we are unpersuaded by Lane‘s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motions for default judgment.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we overrule all four of Lane‘s assignments of error.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 13} Having overruled all four of Lane‘s assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, P.J., and SADLER, J., concur.