TARUN MEHTA v. MICHELE JOHNSON
APPEAL NO. C-220013; TRIAL NO. 19CV-25853
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
November 4, 2022
2022-Ohio-3934
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court. Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Arnold Law Firm, LLC, and George M. Parker, for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Michele Johnson appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court awarding damages to plaintiff-appellee Tarun Mehta. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Mehta is the owner of a rental unit at 1418 Covedale Avenue. Johnson rented the unit from plaintiff starting in January 2019. On October 15, 2019, Mehta filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer against Johnson seeking restitution of the premises. Mehta‘s complaint also included a second cause of action for damages for unpaid rent, utilities, and physical damage to the premises. On November 7, 2019, Johnson filed an answer and jury demand, and bond was set at $1,000 per month, payable that day and each month thereafter by the fifth day of each month. Subsequently, Johnson tendered her rent bond to the court on November 7 and December 3, 2019, and January 6, February 7, and March 6, 2020.
{¶3} Mehta filed a motion to strike Johnson‘s jury demand on April 20, 2020, asserting that Johnson failed to tender her rent bond for April. The motion was granted by the trial court, and the case was referred to the magistrate‘s docket. The magistrate granted Mehta restitution of the premises, and the trial court approved the magistrate‘s decision and issued a seven-day writ of restitution on July 28, 2020. Johnson was physically evicted from the premises when the writ was executed on August 11, 2020.
{¶4} The trial on damages was held on December 22, 2020, and March 30, 2021. Testimony was presented from Johnson and Mehta‘s wife and agent, Candace Cliff. Regarding rent and utilities, Cliff testified that a written lease agreement was prepared for Johnson but Johnson never signed the lease, despite being asked
{¶5} Johnson testified that the unit did not look like what was depicted in the photographs online but admitted that she still took occupancy of the premises. She said that the condition of the unit caused her to have “definite trepidation” as to the home and Cliff. Regarding the written lease, Johnson—although initially denying that she was ever presented with a written lease—said that the written lease “kept being adjusted” so she refused to sign until the lease was final. She agreed that she paid $1,050 for the security deposit and $1,050 for the first month‘s rent. She denied ever making any oral or written agreement as to what the rent would be. When asked if there was an agreement with Cliff for her to pay $1,000 a month for rent, she replied, “There was kind of a pre-agreement, but she never supplied me with a lease.” She said that the agreement was that her rent would be “less by $50.” When asked if she paid
{¶6} In relevant part, regarding damage to the premises, Cliff testified that Johnson caused damage to the garage door to the point that the door was no longer functioning when Johnson vacated the premises. Cliff described an incident where she went to the premises with the police to do a wellness check on Johnson and the garage door “did nothing” when they pushed the button to open the garage door. She claimed that Johnson had blocked the door with something, which caused the door to break. She denied that the police went in through the garage door and said that she ultimately let the police in through a back door. Johnson denied causing damage to the garage door and claimed that the police damaged the garage door “during the weekend when the police tried to break into the house.”
{¶7} On May 14, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision finding that Mehta proved his claim for damages by a preponderance of the evidence and Johnson owed Mehta $12,300 for rent, $1,450.86 for the water bill, and $2,169.96 for physical damage to the premises. Accordingly, after crediting Johnson for her security deposit, the magistrate awarded Mehta $14,870.82 in damages, and ordered the $5,000 held by the clerk of courts be released to Mehta as partial satisfaction of the judgment. Johnson objected to the magistrate‘s decision but the trial court overruled the
II. Law and Analysis
A. Assignment of Error and Standard of Review
{¶8} In a single assignment of error, Johnson argues that the trial court erred in overruling her objections to the magistrate‘s decision and adopting the decision as the judgment of the court. More specifically, Johnson argues the trial court‘s determinations as to the amount of rent owed, who was responsible for the water bill, and who caused the damage to the garage door were against the manifest weight of the evidence. “When reviewing the manifest weight of the evidence in a civil case, we must determine whether the trial court‘s judgment was supported by the greater amount of credible evidence, and whether the plaintiff met its burden of persuasion, which is by a preponderance of the evidence.” Risch v. Samuel, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190159, 2020-Ohio-1094, ¶ 21, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 19. In doing so, “[w]e are mindful that, in a bench trial, ‘the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.’ ” Id., citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).
B. The Damages Award Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence
B1. Unpaid Rent
{¶9} Johnson argues that the trial court‘s “calculation of rent due” was against the manifest weight of the evidence as Johnson testified that the fair rental value of the premises was only $500 per month, making the total amount of the rent owed $10,000 instead of the $20,000 calculated in the magistrate‘s decision, which
B2. Water Bill
{¶10} Johnson argues that the manifest weight of the evidence showed that Mehta was responsible for the water bill. The trial court found that Johnson was responsible for the water bill. At trial, Cliff testified that she made an agreement with Johnson that she would pay the first $50 of the water bill if Johnson paid her rent on time. Cliff also submitted as evidence text messages between the parties. One text message from Cliff to Johnson states, “He doesn‘t know about the $50. Just leave the water in my name and I can forward you the bill. You can add it to your rent less $50 each month. Does that sound ok?” On the other hand, Johnson testified that Cliff agreed to pay the water bill “period.” Because this comes down to a credibility
B3. Damage to the Garage Door
{¶11} Johnson argues that the weight of the evidence showed that it was Mehta who caused the damage to the garage door. The trial court found that Johnson was responsible for the damage to the garage door. At trial, Cliff testified that Johnson blocked the garage door from opening, which caused the damage to the garage door. She said that the police merely pushed the button to open the garage door but ultimately entered through a back door when the garage door did not open. Cliff also submitted as evidence an incident detail report for the police call which had a note that said, “ENTR [sic] W [sic] A KEY TO THE BACK DOOR FOR PO.” On the other hand, Johnson testified that the police broke the garage door when they came with Cliff to the premises to complete the wellness check on Johnson. Because this comes down to a credibility determination and the trial court was in the best position to view the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony, we cannot say that the trial court‘s determination that Johnson was responsible for the damage to the garage door was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, we overrule this portion of the assignment of error
{¶12} We note that Johnson argued for the first time at oral argument that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction in this case as the three-day notice to vacate the premises was not properly served. However, the notice to vacate pertains only to the trial court‘s jurisdiction over the forcible-entry-and-detainer action. See
{¶13} For the reasons expressed above, we hold that the trial court‘s decision on damages was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, we overrule Johnson‘s assignment of error.
IV. Conclusion
{¶14} Having overruled the sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.