[Cite as Blue Water Manor MHC, L.L.C. v. Novotny, 2026-Ohio-2664.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY
BLUE WATER MANOR MHC, L.L.C., CASE NO. 2025-T-0090
Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Newton Falls Municipal Court
EDWARD NOVOTNY, et al., Trial Court No. 2025 CVG 00283 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: July 13, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
William M. Flevares, Flevares Law Firm, L.L.C., 1064 Niles-Cortland Road, N.E., Warren, OH 44484 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Edward Novotny, pro se, 25 Kings Drive, S.W., Warren, OH 44481 (Defendant- Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Edward Novotny, appeals the judgment of the Newton Falls
Municipal Court entering judgment in favor of appellee, Blue Water Manor MHC, L.L.C.
(“Blue Water Manor”), and executing a writ of restitution. We affirm.
{¶2} On December 1, 2025, Blue Water Manor filed a complaint for forcible entry
and detainer against Novotny and “all other occupants” of 25 Kings Drive S.W., a lot
located in a manufactured home community in Newton Township. The first cause of
action is for immediate restitution of the leased premises due to Novotny’s alleged default
under the terms of the lease; Blue Water Manor alleged that Novotny was given a three- day notice to leave the premises on November 17, 2025, and has refused to vacate. The
second cause of action is for money damages in the amount of $1,136.74 for alleged
delinquent charges, plus rent of $428.00 per month and any water charges from
December 1, 2025, until Novotny vacates the premises, plus interest at the statutory rate
from the date of judgment; Blue Water Manor alleged that Novotny has not been current
in his rent since February 28, 2025. Blue Water Manor attached as exhibits to its
complaint a copy of the signed lease and a copy of the three-day notice to leave the
premises.
{¶3} Following the filing of the complaint, on December 1, 2025, the municipal
court summoned Novotny to appear before the court on December 15, 2025, as to his
right to remain on the leased premises. This notice advised that a second hearing would
be held as to the claim for unpaid rent and other claimed damages on January 7, 2026,
and that Novotny had 28 days to answer the complaint as to that cause of action. The
summons was posted by the bailiff on December 3, 2025.
{¶4} The hearing was held as scheduled on Novotny’s right to remain on the
leased premises. A representative of Blue Water Manor appeared with counsel; Novotny
appeared pro se. During the hearing, Novotny submitted a “Motion to Dismiss for
Retaliatory Eviction” and a “Statement Regarding Lease Notices and Rent Dispute.”
{¶5} The trial court issued a judgment entry at the conclusion of the hearing,
finding as follows: “The parties were sworn and testified – there was a rental agreement,
the Defendant is in default since approximately February 28, 2025, the Plaintiff served
Defendant a 3-day notice to vacate but the Defendant still occupies the premises.” The
court entered judgment for Blue Water Manor, with a writ of restitution to issue upon
PAGE 2 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 petition. The court also denied Novotny’s motion to dismiss, finding no retaliatory
conduct. Subsequently, the court found Novotny indigent and granted a waiver of the
prepayment of costs and fees in this matter.
{¶6} Upon the petition of Blue Water Manor, the court executed a writ of
restitution which commanded the bailiff to remove Novotny and all other occupants from
the premises by December 25, 2025. According to Novotny’s “financial disclosure/fee-
waiver affidavit and order,” the other occupants of the lot are his spouse and three minor
children. The writ was posted by the bailiff on December 17, 2025.
{¶7} Novotny filed a notice of appeal to this court on December 17, 2025.
Novotny was granted a stay of execution of the writ of restitution on the condition that he
remains current on his obligation to pay $506.84 per month directly to Blue Water Manor
on or before the first of each month. The stay was vacated on May 1, 2026, after Novotny
failed to pay the full amount due on April 1, 2026.
{¶8} Novotny requested this court to remand this matter for the limited purpose
of settling and approving his App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence and proceedings for
supplementation into the record. The use of an App.R. 9(C) statement of proceedings is
authorized for parties who cannot afford to have a transcript prepared. State ex rel.
Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56, 58 (1986) (“a transcript is unavailable for the
purposes of App.R. 9(C) to an indigent appellant unable to bear the cost of providing a
transcript”); see also 2011 Staff Note to App.R. 9(C). However, Novotny did not meet the
timeliness requirements of App.R. 9(C), and his motion was denied.
{¶9} Novotny assigns three assignments of error for our review:
[1.] The trial court violated Appellant’s right to due process by entering judgment without permitting Appellant to inspect, challenge, or rebut the
PAGE 3 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 landlord’s rent ledger and rental notices, despite acknowledging their existence and relevance at trial.
[2.] The trial court violated Appellant’s right to an impartial tribunal where the circumstances created an appearance of judicial bias or impropriety, undermining confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.
[3.] The trial court erred by granting eviction without requiring Plaintiff to meet its burden of proof as to the amount owed and proper service of statutory notice, despite acknowledging the existence of a rent ledger and declining to review it before ruling.
We consider these assigned errors in reverse order.
{¶10} In his third assignment of error, Novotny contends that the trial court erred
by granting eviction after declining to review acknowledged evidence central to Blue
Water Manor’s claims and without requiring Blue Water Manor to meet its burden of proof.
Specifically, Novotny maintains that Blue Water Manor did not introduce into evidence
(1) a rent ledger, payment history, or documentation establishing the amount allegedly
owed and (2) copies of the statutory notices purportedly served upon him.
{¶11} This assigned error lacks merit for several reasons. First, the trial court has
yet to adjudicate the cause of action for money damages; it has only determined Blue
Water Manor’s right to immediate restitution of the leased premises. Second, Blue Water
Manor did submit with its complaint a copy of the lease and the three-day notice to vacate.
Finally, we are unable to consider the merits of Novotny’s argument because it requires
a review of the transcript or an acceptable substitution. Although the record in this case
contains a videotape recording of the hearing, Novotny failed to have the recording
transcribed into written form as required by App.R. 9(B) and did not timely submit an
App.R. 9(C) statement in lieu of a transcript. Absent this record, we must presume the
validity of the trial court’s proceedings. See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio
PAGE 4 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 St.2d 197, 199 (1980) (“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of
assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Blue Water Manor MHC, L.L.C. v. Novotny, 2026-Ohio-2664.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY
BLUE WATER MANOR MHC, L.L.C., CASE NO. 2025-T-0090
Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Newton Falls Municipal Court
EDWARD NOVOTNY, et al., Trial Court No. 2025 CVG 00283 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: July 13, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
William M. Flevares, Flevares Law Firm, L.L.C., 1064 Niles-Cortland Road, N.E., Warren, OH 44484 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Edward Novotny, pro se, 25 Kings Drive, S.W., Warren, OH 44481 (Defendant- Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Edward Novotny, appeals the judgment of the Newton Falls
Municipal Court entering judgment in favor of appellee, Blue Water Manor MHC, L.L.C.
(“Blue Water Manor”), and executing a writ of restitution. We affirm.
{¶2} On December 1, 2025, Blue Water Manor filed a complaint for forcible entry
and detainer against Novotny and “all other occupants” of 25 Kings Drive S.W., a lot
located in a manufactured home community in Newton Township. The first cause of
action is for immediate restitution of the leased premises due to Novotny’s alleged default
under the terms of the lease; Blue Water Manor alleged that Novotny was given a three- day notice to leave the premises on November 17, 2025, and has refused to vacate. The
second cause of action is for money damages in the amount of $1,136.74 for alleged
delinquent charges, plus rent of $428.00 per month and any water charges from
December 1, 2025, until Novotny vacates the premises, plus interest at the statutory rate
from the date of judgment; Blue Water Manor alleged that Novotny has not been current
in his rent since February 28, 2025. Blue Water Manor attached as exhibits to its
complaint a copy of the signed lease and a copy of the three-day notice to leave the
premises.
{¶3} Following the filing of the complaint, on December 1, 2025, the municipal
court summoned Novotny to appear before the court on December 15, 2025, as to his
right to remain on the leased premises. This notice advised that a second hearing would
be held as to the claim for unpaid rent and other claimed damages on January 7, 2026,
and that Novotny had 28 days to answer the complaint as to that cause of action. The
summons was posted by the bailiff on December 3, 2025.
{¶4} The hearing was held as scheduled on Novotny’s right to remain on the
leased premises. A representative of Blue Water Manor appeared with counsel; Novotny
appeared pro se. During the hearing, Novotny submitted a “Motion to Dismiss for
Retaliatory Eviction” and a “Statement Regarding Lease Notices and Rent Dispute.”
{¶5} The trial court issued a judgment entry at the conclusion of the hearing,
finding as follows: “The parties were sworn and testified – there was a rental agreement,
the Defendant is in default since approximately February 28, 2025, the Plaintiff served
Defendant a 3-day notice to vacate but the Defendant still occupies the premises.” The
court entered judgment for Blue Water Manor, with a writ of restitution to issue upon
PAGE 2 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 petition. The court also denied Novotny’s motion to dismiss, finding no retaliatory
conduct. Subsequently, the court found Novotny indigent and granted a waiver of the
prepayment of costs and fees in this matter.
{¶6} Upon the petition of Blue Water Manor, the court executed a writ of
restitution which commanded the bailiff to remove Novotny and all other occupants from
the premises by December 25, 2025. According to Novotny’s “financial disclosure/fee-
waiver affidavit and order,” the other occupants of the lot are his spouse and three minor
children. The writ was posted by the bailiff on December 17, 2025.
{¶7} Novotny filed a notice of appeal to this court on December 17, 2025.
Novotny was granted a stay of execution of the writ of restitution on the condition that he
remains current on his obligation to pay $506.84 per month directly to Blue Water Manor
on or before the first of each month. The stay was vacated on May 1, 2026, after Novotny
failed to pay the full amount due on April 1, 2026.
{¶8} Novotny requested this court to remand this matter for the limited purpose
of settling and approving his App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence and proceedings for
supplementation into the record. The use of an App.R. 9(C) statement of proceedings is
authorized for parties who cannot afford to have a transcript prepared. State ex rel.
Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56, 58 (1986) (“a transcript is unavailable for the
purposes of App.R. 9(C) to an indigent appellant unable to bear the cost of providing a
transcript”); see also 2011 Staff Note to App.R. 9(C). However, Novotny did not meet the
timeliness requirements of App.R. 9(C), and his motion was denied.
{¶9} Novotny assigns three assignments of error for our review:
[1.] The trial court violated Appellant’s right to due process by entering judgment without permitting Appellant to inspect, challenge, or rebut the
PAGE 3 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 landlord’s rent ledger and rental notices, despite acknowledging their existence and relevance at trial.
[2.] The trial court violated Appellant’s right to an impartial tribunal where the circumstances created an appearance of judicial bias or impropriety, undermining confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.
[3.] The trial court erred by granting eviction without requiring Plaintiff to meet its burden of proof as to the amount owed and proper service of statutory notice, despite acknowledging the existence of a rent ledger and declining to review it before ruling.
We consider these assigned errors in reverse order.
{¶10} In his third assignment of error, Novotny contends that the trial court erred
by granting eviction after declining to review acknowledged evidence central to Blue
Water Manor’s claims and without requiring Blue Water Manor to meet its burden of proof.
Specifically, Novotny maintains that Blue Water Manor did not introduce into evidence
(1) a rent ledger, payment history, or documentation establishing the amount allegedly
owed and (2) copies of the statutory notices purportedly served upon him.
{¶11} This assigned error lacks merit for several reasons. First, the trial court has
yet to adjudicate the cause of action for money damages; it has only determined Blue
Water Manor’s right to immediate restitution of the leased premises. Second, Blue Water
Manor did submit with its complaint a copy of the lease and the three-day notice to vacate.
Finally, we are unable to consider the merits of Novotny’s argument because it requires
a review of the transcript or an acceptable substitution. Although the record in this case
contains a videotape recording of the hearing, Novotny failed to have the recording
transcribed into written form as required by App.R. 9(B) and did not timely submit an
App.R. 9(C) statement in lieu of a transcript. Absent this record, we must presume the
validity of the trial court’s proceedings. See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio
PAGE 4 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 St.2d 197, 199 (1980) (“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of
assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon
and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity
of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”).
{¶12} The third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶13} In his second assignment of error, Novotny contends that multiple
undisputed circumstances existed that, taken together, created an appearance of
impropriety sufficient to undermine confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.
Novotny urges this court to reverse the judgment or remand for further proceedings before
a different judicial officer.
{¶14} R.C. 2701.031 grants the Supreme Court of Ohio the sole authority to rule
on the disqualification of a municipal court judge due to alleged bias or prejudice. As
such, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue raised in this assignment of error.
See Mentor v. Jarvis, 2023-Ohio-1538, ¶ 25-26 (11th Dist.).
{¶15} The second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Novotny contends that the trial court entered
judgment for Blue Water Manor based on allegations of default and service of notice but
did not review or admit into evidence the rent ledger or rental notices upon which the
claims depended and denied him access to the same. Novotny asserts that he was
deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against him and was
deprived of meaningful appellate review, in violation of due process. Novotny urges this
court to reverse the judgment or remand for further proceedings in which he is afforded
the opportunity to inspect and challenge the evidence relied upon to support eviction.
PAGE 5 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 {¶17} “Due process requires that a party be provided adequate notice of a
proposed action as well as an opportunity to be heard.” Zamos v. Zamos, 2009-Ohio-
1321, ¶ 45 (11th Dist.). The opportunity to be heard must be at a meaningful time and in
a meaningful manner. Holz v. Holz, 2001 WL 1453900, *3 (11th Dist. Nov. 16, 2001).
{¶18} Here, Novotny was served with a three-day notice to vacate the premises
on November 17, 2025, and summons for the eviction hearing was posted on December
3, 2025, two weeks in advance of the hearing. The trial court conducted the eviction
hearing on December 15, 2025, at which Novotny appeared and testified. Any argument
that he was deprived of due process during this hearing cannot be demonstrated on
appeal. As stated above, we must presume regularity in the proceedings below because
Novotny failed to file a transcript or a timely alternative. See Burton Carol Mgt., L.L.C. v.
Tessmer, 2015-Ohio-4321, ¶ 20 (11th Dist.).
{¶19} The first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶20} The judgment of the Newton Falls Municipal Court is affirmed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 6 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error
are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the
Newton Falls Municipal Court is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 7 OF 7
Case No. 2025-T-0090