Calicoat v. Conner

2025 Ohio 2252

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 30365
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Calicoat v. Conner, 2025-Ohio-2252.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

KEITH CALICOAT : : C.A. No. 30365 Appellant : : Trial Court Case No. 24CVI00668 v. : : (Civil Appeal from Municipal Court) JESSICA CONNER : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellee : OPINION :

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 27, 2025, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

[[Applied Signature]] MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE

[[Applied Signature 2]] RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE -2- [[Applied Signature 3]] MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE -3-

OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30365

KEITH CALICOAT, Appellant, Pro Se JESSICA CONNER, Appellee, Pro Se

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant Keith Calicoat appeals from the trial court’s judgment that he

was not entitled to damages from a former tenant after she vacated a rental property that he

owned. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Background Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Defendant-Appellee Jessica Conner leased a residential rental property from

Calicoat from September 2020 to September 2021. Upon entering the lease agreement, she

provided a $1,130 security deposit. After Conner moved out of the residence, Calicoat did

not provide an accounting to Conner regarding any damage to the property or the amount

of her security deposit that would be retained for cleaning and repair services. Calicoat had

leased the premises to Conner in his personal capacity, although he also operated a limited

liability company (LLC) through which he conducted his construction or other business(es).

{¶ 3} Calicoat filed a small claims complaint in 2024, alleging that Conner had

damaged and neglected the property and caused damage beyond reasonable wear and tear

in an amount totaling $3,983.16. At trial, while presenting photographs to support his

testimony, Calicoat claimed that Conner had left the property in disrepair without cleaning it.

He testified that he cleaned the premises and performed repair work, charging $125 per

hour as a contractor for cleaning and repair services through his LLC. The lease agreement -4- had not mentioned Calicoat’s LLC or contemplated repair and cleaning charged at the rate

of $125 per hour. Calicoat stated that the LLC accounted for the labor he provided “for tax

reasons.” He claimed that he had replaced the furnace flue, doors, towel holders, lightbulbs,

and window blinds for the property but, despite testifying that he had made purchases at

“Lowe’s or Home Depot,” he had no receipts for those items. He testified that he had tried

to contact Conner regarding his concerns but was unable to reach her.

{¶ 4} Conner testified that she doubted the replacement costs claimed by Calicoat;

she had researched the costs of comparable items and found that his expense claims were

inflated. She stated that she had been unaware that he planned to charge $125 for his labor

and believed that her security deposit was sufficient to cover any costs. She also stated that

Conner never contacted her concerning the property after she moved out.

{¶ 5} Following a trial, the magistrate found that Calicoat had failed to sustain his

burden of proof on the purported property damage by the weight of the evidence and

awarded him no damages. The magistrate noted that Calicoat had not introduced any

evidence regarding his LLC, timesheets showing the dates and times related to labor

charged by the LLC, or the appropriateness of his hourly rate for labor provided for cleaning

and repair services. The magistrate further noted that Calicoat had provided no receipts

evidencing his expenditures on replacement items and was nonspecific about where those

purchases had been made, which led the magistrate to conclude that Calicoat’s damage

summary was “inherently suspect and unreliable.” Finding that Calicoat generally lacked

credibility, and in the absence of trustworthy evidence of the price of materials and labor,

the magistrate awarded Calicoat no damages; it found that he was using the circumstances

to confer a windfall upon himself and that any damage sustained had been adequately

covered by Conner’s $1,130 security deposit. -5- {¶ 6} Calicoat timely filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. According to

Calicoat, his $125 hourly labor rate was reasonable, as it was consistent with what other

similar contractors charged for comparable work. He asserted that he had purchased several

items to make repairs to the property and had submitted photographic evidence

demonstrating damage to the property that exceeded normal wear and tear. He complained

about the magistrate’s questioning the legitimacy of his costs for materials purchased for

repairs, arguing that there was no expert witness at trial to opine that his costs were

excessive or unreasonable and no evidence of a windfall for him. He argued that, pursuant

to the lease agreement, Conner had been obligated to remove her belongings, clean up the

property, and repair damage, and thus he should have been compensated for providing

those services. Finally, he claimed that he had made several attempts to contact Conner by

text and phone to give her an opportunity to address his concerns, but she never responded

to him, leaving him with no choice but to remove the items and repair the damage himself.

{¶ 7} In overruling Calicoat’s objections, the trial court stated that it had conducted an

independent review of the magistrate’s decision, Calicoat’s objections, the trial transcript,

and the exhibits. It concluded that the magistrate had correctly applied the law to the facts

of the case and adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically,

the trial court determined that there were no errors of law or other defects in the decision.

This appeal followed.

{¶ 8} On appeal, Calicoat does not set forth any specific assignments of error; he

essentially restates his objections to the magistrate’s decision. He asserts that the

magistrate’s decision was not based on the evidence presented at trial and that: Conner left

personal items and trash on the property, which required removal and clean-up; Conner

damaged the property, which required repairs; Conner agreed to pay those costs in the -6- rental agreement; and Calicoat deserved to be paid for the work he completed in restoring

his property.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 9} Within 14 days of the filing of a magistrate’s decision, a party may file written

objections to the decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i). Whether or not objections are timely filed, a

trial court may adopt or reject a magistrate’s decision in whole or in part, with or without

modification. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b). “If one or more objections to a magistrate’s decision are

timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections. In ruling on objections, the court shall

undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate

has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” Civ.R.

53(D)(4)(d). A magistrate’s decision is not effective unless adopted by the trial court, and a

trial court that adopts a magistrate’s decision shall enter a judgment in accordance with that

decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a); Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e).

{¶ 10} In accordance with Civ.R. 53, a trial court must conduct a de novo review of

the facts and conclusions contained in the magistrate’s report and enter its own judgment.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fox, 2009-Ohio-1965, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.), citing Dayton v.

Whiting, 110 Ohio App.3d 115, 118 (2d Dist. 1996). An appellate court applies an abuse-of-

discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision. Id. at

¶ 11. “‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary

or unconscionable.” AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment

Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). Thus, “[w]hen an appellate court reviews a trial court’s

adoption of a magistrate’s report for an abuse of discretion, such a determination will only

be reversed where it appears that the trial court’s actions were arbitrary or unreasonable.”

Id., citing Proctor v. Proctor, 48 Ohio App.3d 55, 60-61 (3d Dist. 1988). “When applying an -7- abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court is not free to simply substitute its judgment

for that of the trial court.” Shehata v. Shehata, 2005-Ohio-3659, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing Berk

v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (1990).

{¶ 11} We note at the outset that Calicoat’s filing on appeal satisfies none of the

requirements set forth in App.R. 16(A), which provides that the appellant shall include in its

brief, under the headings and in the order indicated, all of the following:

(1) A table of contents, with page references.

(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other authorities

cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.

(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with

reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.

(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the

assignments of error to which each issue relates.

(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case, the course

of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.

(6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error presented for

review, with appropriate references to the record in accordance with division

(D) of this rule.

(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to

each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of

the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the

record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a

summary.

(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought. -8- App.R. 16(A). “A court of appeals may disregard any assignments of error not separately

argued, or any arguments not supported by references to the record.” Am. Gen. Fin. Servs.,

Inc. v. Mosbaugh, 2011-Ohio-5557, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing App.R. 12(A)(2); Countrywide

Homes, Inc. v. Swayne, 2010-Ohio-3903, ¶ 58 (2d Dist.). “Litigants who choose to proceed

pro se are presumed to know the law and correct procedure, and are held to the same

standard as other litigants. A litigant proceeding pro se ‘cannot expect or demand special

treatment from the judge, who is to sit as an impartial arbiter.’ ” Id. at ¶ 12, citing Dunina v.

Stemple, 2007-Ohio-4719, ¶ 3 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 12} Although Calicoat’s brief does not comply with the Ohio Rules of Appellate

Procedure, and we may therefore disregard his arguments, we infer that his arguments align

with the objections to the magistrate’s decision that he made to the trial court.

{¶ 13} As discussed above, we review the trial court’s decision only for an abuse of

discretion. In this case, the trial court conducted an independent review of the magistrate’s

decision and considered Calicoat’s objections, the transcript of the trial, the exhibits admitted

into evidence (e.g., photographs), and applicable case law. In doing so, it found that the

magistrate had correctly applied the law to the facts. The trial court determined that the

evidence supported the conclusions reached by the magistrate and that there were no errors

of law or other defects evident on the face of the decision. Finding no error, the trial court

properly overruled Calicoat’s objections and fully adopted the findings of facts and

conclusions of law set forth in the magistrate’s decision. Upon our review, we cannot say

that the trial court’s actions were arbitrary or unreasonable, and thus Calicoat’s presumed

errors are overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 14} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. -9- .............

TUCKER, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.