Dayton Human Relations Council v. King

2026 Ohio 668

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 30497
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Dayton Human Relations Council v. King, 2026-Ohio-668.]

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

CITY OF DAYTON HUMAN : RELATIONS COUNCIL, ET AL. : C.A. No. 30497 : Appellees : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CV 03749 : v. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) WESLEY C. KING, JR. ET AL. : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellants : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on February 27, 2026, 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.

For the court,

CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30497

DAVID M. DUWEL, Attorney for Appellants THOMAS M. GREEN and D. ALEXANDER NISWONGER, Attorneys for Appellees

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Wesley King Jr. and Noos Holdings LLC (collectively, “King”) appeal from a

judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. King asserts that the trial court

erred when it allowed Sarah Lamb and the City of Dayton Human Relations Council (“HRC”)

to file the video of the proceedings before the magistrate out of time. For the following

reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In 2022, Lamb was an undergraduate student at the University of Dayton, and

she leased an apartment owned by King from August 19, 2022, through May 7, 2023.

Although pets were not allowed in the apartment, Lamb notified King that she had a disability

and requested an emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation. The parties

discussed the possibility of an amendment to the lease, and King expressed his concerns

with allowing a pet to live in Lamb’s apartment. Ultimately, Lamb filed a complaint with HRC,

alleging violations of Dayton’s housing discrimination ordinance. HRC investigated and

issued a final investigative report, finding that there was probable cause that King violated

R.C.G.O. 32.05(C) and 32.05(I) by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for Lamb

and engaging in retaliatory or coercive conduct after Lamb made her request. On June 15,

2023, King filed a notice electing judicial determination of the matter, and Lamb and HRC

filed a complaint in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court on June 18, 2023. The

matter was referred to the magistrate, who held a bench trial. The magistrate issued a

2 decision recommending that the trial court find that King engaged in housing discrimination

against Lamb and awarding damages to Lamb and HRC. Lamb and HRC filed objections to

the magistrate’s decision. The objections included a challenge to the magistrate’s award of

damages.

{¶ 3} The trial court sustained Lamb and HRC’s objections to the magistrate’s legal

conclusions but stated that it could not independently review the magistrate’s factual findings

regarding damages without reviewing the bench trial proceedings. The trial court

acknowledged that Lamb and HRC had failed to file a transcript within thirty days as required

by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). However, the trial court reasoned that it would not serve the interest

of judicial economy to hold a de novo hearing and repeat the same evidence and testimony

that was already submitted to the magistrate. Accordingly, it extended the deadline for filing

a record of the proceedings and ordered Lamb and HRC to file a video of the bench trial.

They filed the video with the trial court, which ultimately awarded Lamb $2,500 in

compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The trial court also entered a

stipulated agreed entry awarding Lamb and HRC $19,013.04 in attorney fees and expenses.

II. Appellate Review

{¶ 4} In their sole assignment of error, King asserts that the trial court erred when it

allowed Lamb and HRC to file the video of the proceedings before the magistrate more than

thirty days after the filing of the King’s objections.

{¶ 5} “A trial court’s decision regarding whether to consider untimely filed transcript

when ruling on objections to a magistrate’s decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Likely, 2017-Ohio-7693, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). “‘The term “abuse

of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s

3 attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio

St.3d 217, 219 (1983), quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980).

{¶ 6} When ruling on objections to a magistrate’s decision, “[t]he [trial] court may

adopt, reject, or modify the magistrate’s decision, hear additional evidence, recommit the

matter to the magistrate with instructions, or hear the matter.” Civ.R. 53(E)(4)(b). Further,

“[t]he objecting party shall file the transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after

filing objections unless the court extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript

or other good cause.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).

{¶ 7} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) specifically allows the trial court to extend the deadline to

file a transcript beyond thirty days for good cause. The record here demonstrates that one

of Lamb and HRC’s objections to the magistrate’s decision pertained to the magistrate’s

factual finding regarding the amount of damages awarded to Lamb. The trial court correctly

stated that it could not make a determination regarding the magistrate’s factual findings

without reviewing the transcript or record of the proceedings before the magistrate. The trial

court noted that it allowed the extension instead of ordering a de novo hearing because it

would be a waste of judicial time and resources for the parties to present the same evidence

and testimony to the trial court that was already presented to the magistrate. The trial court’s

extension of the deadline to file the record of proceedings allowed the resolution of all

pending factual issues while also serving the interests of judicial economy, time, and

resources. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the extension.

{¶ 8} King’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

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

.............

4 TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.