Mandzak v. GravesMandzak v. Graves
Kari E. Yeomans, 123 Boggs Lane, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246, for defendant-appellee
O P I N I O N
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Roger Mandzak, appeals a decision of the Fairfield Municipal Court entering judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Kyria Graves.
{¶2} Mandzak was the owner of a condominium located at 3895 Mack Road in Fairfield, which was subject to a foreclosure. On or about August 15, 2006, a writ of possession was executed on the property. Graves was hired by the bank which purchased the property, Wells Fargo, to ensure that all of appellant‘s property had been removed from the premises and secure the property. Additional individuals from the
{¶3} The movers completed removing all of appellant‘s property late in the evening. Graves was at the property to lock the door and secure the property for the bank. Mandzak returned to the property around midnight, asking to inspect the condominium one final time to ensure that the bank‘s movers had removed everything and whether there was any remaining property. According to Mandzak, Graves had a dog with him and blocked the entrance to the condominium, denying entrance.
{¶4} After later conducting an inventory of his belongings, Mandzak noticed that some of his property was missing. Mandzak filed suit against Graves for denying entrance to the condominium and stealing or converting his property. Following trial before a magistrate, the magistrate filed a written decision entering judgment in favor of Mandzak and ordering Graves to pay $2,275. Graves filed timely objections to the magistrate‘s decision. Following a hearing on the objections, the trial court reversed the magistrate‘s decision and entered judgment in favor of Graves. Mandzak timely appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{¶5} “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICE [sic] ERROR IN REVERSING THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION WHILE CLAIMING NO LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS WHATSOEVER.”
{¶6} In his brief, Mandzak attacks the trial court‘s entry of a general decision in this matter, which reversed the decision of the magistrate and entered judgment in favor of Graves. Mandzak claims that reversal of a magistrate‘s decision without a legal or factual finding and basis is an abuse of discretion. Specifically, Mandzak urges, it “is absolutely incomprehensible because the court gave absolutely no reason whatsoever for reversing a thorough and carefully reasoned opinion.”
{¶8} Mandzak complains that the trial court had a duty to submit a written decision in this case explaining its reasoning for the judgment overruling the magistrate‘s decision. The court has no such duty.
{¶9} It is long-standing Ohio law that a court of record speaks only through its journal. Schenley v. Kauth (1953), 160 Ohio St. 109, paragraph one of the syllabus. Without findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is difficult for a reviewing court to conduct a meaningful review, determine the validity of the trial court‘s decision, or determine the existence of an assigned error on appeal. See Natl. City Mtge. Co. v. Wellman, 174 Ohio App.3d 622, 2008-Ohio-207, ¶25; Info. Leasing Corp. v. Chambers, 152 Ohio App.3d 715, 2003-Ohio-2670, ¶74; and Creggin Group, Ltd. v. Crown Diversified Industries Corp. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 853, 859.
{¶10} Mandzak never requested findings of fact or conclusions of law following receipt of the trial court‘s decision. In its judgment entry, the trial court stated that it examined the pleadings and exhibits in the file and reviewed the hearing before the magistrate. Because Mandzak failed to request findings pursuant to
{¶11} Mandzak‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶12} Judgment affirmed.
BRESSLER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.