Armstrong v. Nettles
This text of 2026 Ohio 214 (Armstrong v. Nettles) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as Armstrong v. Nettles, 2026-Ohio-214.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Jerrika Armstrong Court of Appeals No. {48}L-25-00114
Appellee Trial Court No. CVI-25-00737
v.
Fredrick Nettles DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: January 23, 2026
*****
Jerrika Armstrong, pro se, appellee.
Fredrick Nettles, pro se, appellant.
***** OSOWIK, J.
Introduction
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a May 16, 2025 judgment of the Toledo Municipal
Court, awarding a default judgment in the amount of $4,470 plus court costs and per
annum statutory interest from the date of the judgment in favor of appellee, Jerrika
Armstrong.
{¶ 2} On January 24, 2025, appellee filed a complaint in Toledo Municipal Court,
Small Claims Division, against appellant, Frederick Nettles, Jr., alleging “Defendant owes Delinquent daycare payment and damage to 2005 Pontiac vibe. Defendant agreed
to pay $68 a week for daycare for shared child. Cost has now exceeded way beyond due
date accumulating $1570. Damage was done to back bumper, exhaust, trunk/hatch of
vehicle 2005 Pontiac vibe which he was involved in a single accident.” On her
complaint, appellee specifically instructed the Clerk to issue notice to appellant by
ordinary mail if certified mail notice was returned as Unclaimed or Refused.
{¶ 3} On January 24, 2025, the record establishes that the Clerk issued a summons
and a copy of the complaint by certified mail to appellant notifying him of a court date of
February 27, 2025. The record also establishes that the certified mail notice to appellant
was returned to the Clerk on February 24, 2025 and marked as “REFUSED” by the Post
Office.
{¶ 4} The record of the Clerk also indicates that on February 24, 2025 a summons
and complaint were issued by ordinary mail to appellant, notifying him of the new court
date of April 1, 2025. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this notice was
returned unclaimed.
The April 1, 2025 Small Claims Hearing
{¶ 5} When the case was called, the following transpired:
THE COURT: So Mr. Nettles, I’m told, just two minutes ago that he called
this morning saying he wasn’t going to be here.
THE CLERK: He said he had work and he wasn’t able to make it.
2. THE COURT: Okay. So I will recommend a default judgment in your
favor. You’ve got some evidence here?
Ms. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Estimates and daycare payments.
{¶ 6} The court then took possession of three exhibits which were marked as
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, a damage estimate from a body shop; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, two
pictures depicting damage to a vehicle and Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, copies of text messages
ostensibly between appellant and appellee. Thereupon the magistrate recommended a
default judgment in the amount of $4,470 plus court costs and per annum statutory
interest from the date of the judgment in favor of appellee.
{¶ 7} On April 15, 2025, appellant filed objections to that recommendation. In his
objections, he claimed “The damages to the vehicle are false.” He further claimed that he
was willing to pay “every other week paid my portion $120 total for daycare.”
{¶ 8} Upon an independent review, on May 16, 2025, the trial court denied the
objections and awarded judgment in the amount of $4,470 plus court costs and per annum
statutory interest from the date of the judgment in favor of appellee.
Assignment(s) of Error
{¶ 9} Appellant presents a single assignment of error for our review which states:
The trial court erred to the final order, by granting the appellee default judgment of 4,470 dollars in daycare payments and damages to vehicle. Also violating appellant constitutional rights, requiring reversal under Section 2321.18 .
{¶ 10} In his brief, appellant argues three points in support of his assignment. For
his initial point, he states that he was unable to attend the trial court hearing “due to work
3. hours.” Also, he implores this court to “review and look over thoroughly the information
presented” in the case. In his second point, he argues that “the receipt received in the
transcript is false” and that the “damage received in transcript are frivolous.” In his final
enumerated point, appellant appears to concede on the daycare expense claim by stating
that “appellant consensually agreed to make payments for our childcare expenses.” He
further argues that “Nothing was written on paper or looked over to oblige me to pay
daycare expenses.” He further argues that due to lack of evidence, “under section 2321.18
ORC appellant deserves a new trial.”
Analysis
{¶ 11} This is an appeal from a default judgment as a result of appellant’s failure
to appear at the April 1, 2025 small claims hearing. Appellant is not claiming that he was
not notified of the hearing. In fact, the record establishes that he was issued a summons
by the Clerk. Nevertheless, he failed to appear or request a continuance. To the contrary,
the magistrate acknowledged on the record that appellant had indeed called the court the
morning of the hearing and told the Clerk that he “had work and wasn’t able to make it.”
{¶ 12} Essentially, appellant’s arguments mirror his objections to the magistrate’s
report before the trial court. His objections claimed “The damages to the vehicle are
false. Further, “For the daycare payment, I willingly every other week paid my portion
$120 total for daycare.”
{¶ 13} Appellant seems to be arguing that the trial court's judgment was against
the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court abused its discretion in awarding
4. appellee a judgment for $4,470. He bases his argument on his contention that appellee
introduced “false” evidence concerning the automobile damage and that the claim was
“frivolous.” Furthermore, with respect to the claim for daycare expenses, he openly
concedes and admits his obligation and “consensually agreed to make payments for our
child daycare expenses” despite the fact that “Nothing was written on paper.”
{¶ 14} We will not reverse a judgment supported by some competent, credible
evidence going to all the essential elements of the case as being against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Bennett v. Esmond, 2025-Ohio-5299, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), citing C.E.
Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978), syllabus.
{¶ 15} The record establishes that appellee presented exhibits in support of her
claims and that the magistrate and the trial court considered these exhibits in awarding
the amount of judgment. Further, by his failure to appear at the small claims hearing
despite notice, appellant has no basis to contest that the trial court's decision was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Where a party who is not in default, nevertheless,
fails to appear at a hearing or trial, that party may be found to have no support for any
further review of the findings. Dover Elevator Co. v. Onapolis, 1997 WL 286138, *3
(11th Dist. May 23, 1997), citing Ankrom v. Ankrom, 30 Ohio App.3d 47 (8th Dist.
1985).
{¶ 16} Appellant proffered no evidence or testimony to contradict the otherwise
sufficient evidence which was presented by appellee to the trial court. Appellant had the
opportunity to produce his evidence and present his arguments. Appellant chose to ignore
5. this opportunity or even move the court for a continuance.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 Ohio 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-nettles-ohioctapp-2026.