Dickman v. Johnson
This text of 2025 Ohio 4349 (Dickman v. Johnson) 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 Dickman v. Johnson, 2025-Ohio-4349.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Jamie Dickman Court of Appeals No. L-25-00020
Appellee Trial Court No. 23 CVG 151
v.
Jamar Johnson DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 16, 2025
*****
Misty Wood, for appellee.
Jamar Johnson, for appellant.
***** ZMUDA, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jamar Johnson, appeals the December 17, 2024 decision of the
Oregon Municipal Court, denying Johnson’s motion to dismiss judgment of eviction and
Johnson’s motion to set aside eviction pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Finding no error, we
affirm. {¶ 2} The dispute between Johnson and appellee, Jaime Dickman, originated in
2023. Johnson and Dickman entered into an oral agreement for the purchase of real
property at 1060 Patchen Road, Oregon, Ohio. Although Johnson made a partial payment,
took possession of the property, and commenced work, the transaction was not finalized
and Johnson was asked to leave the property. When Johnson refused, Dickman filed a
landlord complaint for possession of the property, which the trial court granted on
September 15, 2023, after hearing.
{¶ 3} Johnson filed a timely appeal of the judgment, granting restitution of the
property to Dickman on October 18, 2023, in case No. CL-23-1236. Johnson failed to file
an appellate brief or otherwise pursue the appeal. On February 12, 2024, we dismissed
the appeal pursuant to App.R. 18(C) and 6th Dist.Loc.App.R.5(B). Johnson filed a
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, which we denied.
{¶ 4} Following dismissal of his first appeal, Johnson sought further relief from
the trial court. Johnson filed a motion to correct the record, seeking to place an
unexecuted settlement agreement into the record and a reopening of the eviction case to
argue the merits of the parties’ oral purchase agreement. Dickman opposed the motion,
arguing the matter was final as to disposition of the property upon the termination of
appellate proceedings.
{¶ 5} On April 3, 2024, the trial court denied the motion to correct the record,
noting the unexecuted agreement was admitted as evidence during the eviction
proceedings and fully litigated. Johnson filed a follow-up motion, asking the trial court to
2. clarify the court’s decision to vacate a review date, prior to the 2023 eviction hearing, and
to address the violation of his due process rights. On May 3, 2024, the trial court clarified
the review date was set at Dickman’s request, as a procedural matter, “if needed so the
Court could keep track of the matter.” The trial court clarified that a review date was not
needed once settlement discussions failed and the matter proceeded to an eviction hearing
on Dickman’s amended complaint. Specifically, the settlement agreement would have
provided for conveyance of the property to Johnson upon payment of the agreed-upon
price, but Johnson did not remit that payment. The trial court further found no due
process rights were violated in the 2023 proceedings.
{¶ 6} On May 15, 2024, Johnson filed a second appeal in case No. CL-24-1122,
challenging the trial court’s April 3 and May 3, 2024 entries. During the pendency of his
second appeal, on May 20, 2024, Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the eviction action
and a motion to set aside the eviction. The trial court stayed ruling on the motion pending
the outcome of appellate proceedings. On October 25, 2024, we dismissed the second
appeal, finding Johnson failed to file a brief or otherwise proceed, pursuant to App.R.
18(C) and 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 5(B).
{¶ 7} On December 17, 2024, the trial court denied both pending motions. The
trial court determined that Johnson “has not raised any issues for relief from judgment” as
required under Civ.R. 60(B) and denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to set aside
the eviction.
3. {¶ 8} On January 16, 2025, Johnson filed the present appeal from the trial court’s
December 17, 2024 judgments. However, while challenging the denial of his motions
seeking relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), Johnson asserts the following as error
in his appeal:
1. The trial court erred by failing to preserve any record or transcript of the proceedings, thereby denying Appellant’s right to appellate review.
2. The trial court erred by allowing Appellee to file an amended complaint without notice, and by proceeding with a critical hearing on July 20, 2023 while Appellant was unlawfully excluded from the courtroom.
3. The trial court erred by enforcing the land purchase contract against Appellant even though Appellee failed to provide clear title as required by the agreement, and Appellee’s counsel had improperly transferred title to his own company without probate clearance of a deceased co- owner’s interest.
4. The trial court’s actions, as described above, cumulatively violated Appellant’s right to due process of law under the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
{¶ 9} In support of his assignments of error, Johnson addresses the underlying
eviction proceeding, with copies of prior decisions from 2023 and 2024 attached as
exhibits to his appellant’s brief. Johnson’s argument, however, raises no issues relative to
the trial court’s decisions in this appeal, his motions seeking relief from judgment under
Civ.R. 60(B). Thus, Johnson’s assignments of error address matters not appealed in the
present case.
{¶ 10} The scope of an appeal is determined by the designation contained within
the notice of appeal, filed pursuant to App.R. 3(A). In re Anthony C., 2006-Ohio-6812, ¶
4. 15 (6th Dist.) (because judgment attached to notice of appeal “only issued an order of
disposition for Anthony C. … the ‘scope’ of the appeal is limited” to that entry). Based on
Johnson’s notice of appeal, he is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion under
Civ.R. 60(B).
{¶ 11} We are limited to considering his assignments of error, however, as “[a]n
appellate court rules on assignments of error only, and cannot address mere arguments.”
Knous v. Bauer, 2023-Ohio-2622, ¶ 32 (6th Dist.), quoting Gilliam v. Rucki, 2023-Ohio-
1413, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.); see also App.R. 12(A)(1)(b). Thus, Johnson has provided no basis
for considering the judgments he has appealed in the present matter, arguing, instead, the
merits of prior judgments that became final and the law of the case upon dismissal of his
prior appeals. See, e.g., Ogline v. Sam’s Drug Mart, LLC, 2014-Ohio-2355, ¶ 33 (5th
Dist.) (“Once this Court dismissed the initial appeal pursuant to App.R. 18(C), we, in
effect, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, which is now the law of the case.”); (citation
omitted) State v. Milner, 2020-Ohio-1160, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.) (the law of the case doctrine
prevents the “agitation of settled issues”). This finality also bars further litigation in a
subsequent appeal, based on res judicata. See State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-4977, ¶ 4 (1st
Dist.); (citation omitted) State v. Miller, 2015-Ohio-4413, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.) (“It is well-
established that res judicata precludes an appellant from raising [claims] which could
have been raised on past appeals of the underlying judgment.”).
{¶ 12} Accordingly, as the scope of the appeal is limited to the trial court’s
judgments under Civ.R. 60(B), and Johnson argues only matters unrelated to the Civ.R.
5.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 4349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickman-v-johnson-ohioctapp-2025.