Adams v. June

2021 Ohio 168
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 25, 2021
Docket12-20-04
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2021 Ohio 168 (Adams v. June) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. June, 2021 Ohio 168 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

[Cite as Adams v. June, 2021-Ohio-168.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PUTNAM COUNTY

BRETT L. ADAMS, CASE NO. 12-20-04 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

LINDA JUNE, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Appeal from Putnam County Municipal Court Trial Court No. 2019 SC I 00029

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: January 25, 2021

APPEARANCES:

Brett L. Adams, Appellant Case No. 12-20-04

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Brett L. Adams (“Adams”) appeals the judgment of

the Small Claims Division of the Putnam County Municipal Court (“the trial court”),

alleging several errors with the trial court’s decision. For the reasons set forth

below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On December 9, 2019, Adams filed a complaint in small claims court,

alleging that Linda June (“June”) had hired him to perform several projects for her

and had failed to fully compensate him for this work. Doc. 1. He alleged that June

had paid him for a portion of his work but still owed him $2,259.64. Doc. 1. On

January 14, 2020, June filed a counterclaim. Doc. 4. She asserted that Adams was

“relieved of his duties [on] October 21, 2019 due to unfinished, unsatisfactory * * *

work * * *.” Doc. 4. June then alleged that Adams owed her $2,239.88 for services

she provided to him and for his unfinished work. Doc. 4. She also alleged that

Adams had hired her son to work for him. Doc. 4.

{¶3} The trial was scheduled for January 22, 2020. Doc. 2, 5. At trial,

Adams testified on his own behalf. Doc. 9. June then presented the trial court with

sixteen pictures of the work that Adams had performed for her and called a witness

to testify on her behalf. Ex. 1-16. Doc. 9. After hearing the evidence, the trial court

found that Adams performed several projects for June for an agreed upon price of

$3,040.00. Doc. 9. The trial court then found that Adams had performed additional

-2- Case No. 12-20-04

work for June but that the parties had not agreed on a price to be paid for this

additional work. Doc. 9.

{¶4} The trial court then concluded that Adams had not demonstrated that

June was liable to him for the additional work that he had performed and had not

established the value of this additional work. Doc. 9. Finding that June had already

paid Adams $3,110.00, the trial court determined that Adams was not entitled to

further compensation. Doc. 9. The trial court also concluded that June did not prove

her counterclaim. Doc. 9. Accordingly, the trial court determined that neither party

owed the other party any amount of money and ordered each party to pay the costs

of their respective claims. Doc. 9.

{¶5} The appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 21, 2020. On

appeal, Adams raises the following four assignments of error:

First Assignment of Error

[Adams w]as not notified until day of Court [that] Linda June had brought witnesses to court with her.

Second Assignment of Error

[Adams w]as not shown the photos submitted to judge at hearing by Linda June.

Third Assignment of Error

[The] Judge allowed Linda June-Appellee to state [that] I, Brett L. Adams, had hired her son to work for me.

-3- Case No. 12-20-04

Fourth Assignment of Error

[The] Judge failed to award me, Brett L. Adams, my pay for all jobs done.

{¶6} Adams asserts that the trial court erred in allowing June to call witnesses

whose names had not been previously disclosed to Adams.

Legal Standard

{¶7} Discovery is the process by which the parties disclose information,

including many of the evidentiary materials or witnesses that the parties intend to

use at trial. See Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). However, “[d]iscovery in

small claims court is not a matter of right and it is not governed by the same formal

rules that apply to common pleas court.” Video Discovery, Inc. v. Passov, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 86445, 2006-Ohio-1070, ¶ 23. This is because small claims court

exists to allow individuals the opportunity to have “an informal, inexpensive and

expedited procedure without the usual delays engendered by * * * elaborate

discovery.” O’Connor v. Moore, 4th Dist. Adams No. 92-CA-525, 1993 WL 63453,

*4 (Mar. 2, 1993). See Civ.R. 1(C)(4); R.C. 1925.09.

{¶8} Further, the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the appeals

process. App.R. 1(A). Appellate Rule 16(A)(7) requires an appellant to cite to legal

authorities that that support his or her arguments. App.R. 16(A)(7). On appeal, an

appellant has the responsibility to prove that the trial court committed an error.

-4- Case No. 12-20-04

Shumate v. City of Gahanna, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-881, 2003-Ohio-1329,

¶ 6. The appellant cannot prove the trial court erred by “merely setting forth

conclusory statements” that claim the trial court erred. In re B.P., 9th Dist. Lorain

No. 14CA010531, 2015-Ohio-48, ¶ 10, citing App.R. 16(A)(7). Instead, the

appellant needs to cite to legal authorities that demonstrate that the trial court

committed an error. App.R. 16(A)(7).

Legal Analysis

{¶9} In this case, Adams asserts that the trial court erred by allowing June to

call a witness that she did not disclose to Adams before the trial. Doc. 9. However,

Adams has not identified any legal rule that governs small claims court and indicates

that the trial court erred by allowing this witness to testify. See App.R. 16(A)(7).

For this reason, he has not carried the burden of proving that the trial court

committed an error in this regard. See Haldy v. Hoeffel, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-19-

08, 2020-Ohio-975, ¶ 36, citing App.R. 12(A)(2). As a consequence, the first

assignment of error is overruled.

{¶10} Adams argues that the trial court erred by not allowing him to see the

photos that were submitted to the trial court by June.

{¶11} Under Appellate Rule 9(B), the appellant must “provide the [court of

appeals] with transcripts of the proceedings that are necessary to review the merits

-5- Case No. 12-20-04

of [the] appeal.” State v. Brown, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-10-12, 2010-Ohio-4546, ¶

8, citing App.R. 9(B). The reason for this rule is that a court of appeals, in many

cases, needs to review “a trial transcript to verify whether” the trial court committed

the error that has been alleged by the appellant. Woodrum v. Wheel’s Outpost Motor

Sales, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-86-46, 1987 WL 7065, *2 (Feb. 27, 1987).

{¶12} A court of appeals “will not guess at * * * claims on appeal.” State v.

Stevenson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24408, 2009-Ohio-2455, ¶ 21. For this reason, if

an appellant has not filed a transcript that is needed to verify whether the trial court

committed the alleged error, a courts of appeals is to presume that the trial court

acted properly. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.

384, 385 (1980). Thus, when such a situation arises, the court of appeals “has no

choice but to * * * affirm” the decision of the trial court on that issue. Id.

{¶13} Adams asserts that the trial court did not allow him to view the pictures

submitted by June as exhibits at trial. However, to prevail in this appeal, Adams

must do more than claim that the trial court erred. As the appellant, Adams has the

responsibility to prove that the trial court committed an error. See Knapp at 199

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chambers v. Chambers
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026
Cole v. Schoenberger
2026 Ohio 768 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026)
Bigler v. Haynes
2025 Ohio 5105 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
V.C. v. O.C.
2021 Ohio 1491 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 Ohio 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-june-ohioctapp-2021.