[Cite as Helfrich v. Heinz, 2023-Ohio-4425.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAMES HELFRICH JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 23 CA 0048 CAROLINE LARSON HEINZ, et al.
Defendants-Appellees OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 23 CVF 00289
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 5, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
JAMES HELFRICH No Appearance PRO SE P. O. Box 921 Pataskala, Ohio 43062 Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant James Helfrich appeals the May 17, 2023, decision of the Licking
County Municipal Court following a bench trial, finding in his favor for unpaid rent and
damages to a rental property leased to Appellee Caroline Larson Heinz.
{¶2} Appellees Caroline Larson Heinz and Steven Larson have not filed a brief
in this matter.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} On February 9, 2023, Appellant James Helfrich filed an action in the Licking
County Municipal Court alleging a claim for unpaid rent and damages to the rental
property that Appellee Caroline Larson Heinz leased from him.
{¶4} On March 16, 2023, Appellees filed their Answer and Counterclaim for
return of the security deposit. This counterclaim was later withdrawn at trial.
{¶5} On March 27, 2023, Appellant filed “Plaintiff’s Answer to Caroline Larson
Heinz and Steven Larson’s Counterclaim and Request for this Court to Sanction both
Defendants under Ohio Revised Code 2323.51 Upon Conclusion of this Action.”
{¶6} On April 27, 2023, the matter proceeded to trial. At trial, the trial court heard
testimony from Appellant James Helfrich, Caroline Larson Heinz, and Steven Larson, who
is Ms. Heinz’ father, attorney and co-signer on the lease. Appellant appeared pro se.
{¶7} At trial, Appellant testified as to the costs he incurred in this matter, which
included unpaid rent for one month and unpaid utility bills, professional carpet cleaning,
replacement carpet and carpet pad, and the cost of labor. He also testified that he
replaced a light globe, stove drip pans and a thermostat; the dirty condition of the linoleum
in the kitchen; and the cost of having the carpet professionally cleaned. (T. at 20-28). Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 3
{¶8} Ms. Heinz testified that she cleaned the carpet with a carpet cleaner she
rented from Kroger. (T. at 40, 46). She further testified that there were no stove drip pans
missing, that she replaced 2 drip pans, and also replaced window blinds. (T. at 40). She
testified that she cleaned the linoleum floor as best she could, but that the flooring was
old. (T. at 40-45). She also testified that the original thermostat was broken so she
replaced it with a new electronic one. (T. at 41-42). She stated that she left the broken
one in a desk drawer in the kitchen. (T. at 45-46).
{¶9} Mr. Larson testified that he visited his daughter every month, and that she
kept the property in good shape. (T. at 48). He stated that he was no longer asking for
the return of the security deposit, and that he was withdrawing his counter claim. (T. at
53). He explained to the judge “I’m [sic] just a you know a lawyer thing file counter claims
…To try and settle cases.” (T. at 53).
{¶10} By Judgment Entry filed May 17, 2023, the trial court found,
Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendants owed him rent for one month in the amount of $910.00 and
$100.00 late fee. He also proved he was entitled to damages for the
following items:
Carpet cleaning (as set out in the lease addendum) $197.34
Water/Sewer bill $146.80
Gas bill $79.41
Electric bill $48.04
Light globe $10.00 Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 4
Plaintiffs other damages requests related to normal wear and tear or
were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,491.59. As
plaintiff is entitled to the security deposit, defendant's owe plaintiff $481.59.
{¶11} On May 30, 2023, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
{¶12} By Judgment Entry filed May 31, 2023, the trial court denied the Motion for
Reconsideration.
{¶13} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING A NUMBER OF CLAIMS
FOR DAMAGES WHEN THERE WAS COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS
TO THE DAMAGES AND COSTS.
{¶15} “II. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT HAVE A COST HEARING
THAT HELFRICH REQUESTED.
{¶16} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING HELFRICH'S STANDARD
TO A BURDEN OF PROOF.”
I.
{¶17} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying certain claims for damages and costs. We disagree.
{¶18} Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all
the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being
against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio
St.2d 279, 280, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). When reviewing a judgment under a manifest Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 5
weight standard, an appellate court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the
trier of fact are correct. State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d
1264, ¶ 24. Mere disagreement over the credibility of witnesses or evidence is not
sufficient reason to reverse a judgment. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio
St.3d 77, 81, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).
{¶19} Appellant herein argues that the trial court should have allowed damages
for removal and replacement of the carpet and carpet padding, including hauling away
old carpet/padding, as well as the cost of labor for cleaning of the stove and refrigerator,
linoleum and tile floors, and bathroom (shower, tub and toilet). He claims he paid
someone $840 to do this work and to travel to the stores to pick up the materials, change
light globe and thermostat, etc.
{¶20} In a case between a landlord and a tenant, a landlord is not entitled to
damages for repairs to a rental property where the damages resulted from reasonable
wear and tear. Bibler v. Nash, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5–05–09, 2005–Ohio–5036, ¶ 18.
{¶21} Courts generally view the need for cleaning and repainting costs between
tenants, even for leases as short as one year, as the sole responsibility of the landlord.
See, e.g., Swartz v. Luker, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA91-07-051, 1991 WL 278243, 1991
Ohio App. LEXIS 6319 (Dec. 30, 1991) (finding cleaning and painting costs did not
constitute damage beyond ordinary wear and tear); see also Kelley v. Johnston, 4th Dist.
Gallia No. 01CA5, 2001-Ohio-2622 (finding carpet cleaning and painting costs did not
exceed ordinary wear and tear after a three and one-half year tenancy). Landlords
“cannot seek to hold [their tenants] responsible for its own required maintenance of the
premises. This is a normal cost of doing business.” Kovac v. Whay, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 6
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Helfrich v. Heinz, 2023-Ohio-4425.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAMES HELFRICH JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 23 CA 0048 CAROLINE LARSON HEINZ, et al.
Defendants-Appellees OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 23 CVF 00289
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 5, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
JAMES HELFRICH No Appearance PRO SE P. O. Box 921 Pataskala, Ohio 43062 Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant James Helfrich appeals the May 17, 2023, decision of the Licking
County Municipal Court following a bench trial, finding in his favor for unpaid rent and
damages to a rental property leased to Appellee Caroline Larson Heinz.
{¶2} Appellees Caroline Larson Heinz and Steven Larson have not filed a brief
in this matter.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} On February 9, 2023, Appellant James Helfrich filed an action in the Licking
County Municipal Court alleging a claim for unpaid rent and damages to the rental
property that Appellee Caroline Larson Heinz leased from him.
{¶4} On March 16, 2023, Appellees filed their Answer and Counterclaim for
return of the security deposit. This counterclaim was later withdrawn at trial.
{¶5} On March 27, 2023, Appellant filed “Plaintiff’s Answer to Caroline Larson
Heinz and Steven Larson’s Counterclaim and Request for this Court to Sanction both
Defendants under Ohio Revised Code 2323.51 Upon Conclusion of this Action.”
{¶6} On April 27, 2023, the matter proceeded to trial. At trial, the trial court heard
testimony from Appellant James Helfrich, Caroline Larson Heinz, and Steven Larson, who
is Ms. Heinz’ father, attorney and co-signer on the lease. Appellant appeared pro se.
{¶7} At trial, Appellant testified as to the costs he incurred in this matter, which
included unpaid rent for one month and unpaid utility bills, professional carpet cleaning,
replacement carpet and carpet pad, and the cost of labor. He also testified that he
replaced a light globe, stove drip pans and a thermostat; the dirty condition of the linoleum
in the kitchen; and the cost of having the carpet professionally cleaned. (T. at 20-28). Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 3
{¶8} Ms. Heinz testified that she cleaned the carpet with a carpet cleaner she
rented from Kroger. (T. at 40, 46). She further testified that there were no stove drip pans
missing, that she replaced 2 drip pans, and also replaced window blinds. (T. at 40). She
testified that she cleaned the linoleum floor as best she could, but that the flooring was
old. (T. at 40-45). She also testified that the original thermostat was broken so she
replaced it with a new electronic one. (T. at 41-42). She stated that she left the broken
one in a desk drawer in the kitchen. (T. at 45-46).
{¶9} Mr. Larson testified that he visited his daughter every month, and that she
kept the property in good shape. (T. at 48). He stated that he was no longer asking for
the return of the security deposit, and that he was withdrawing his counter claim. (T. at
53). He explained to the judge “I’m [sic] just a you know a lawyer thing file counter claims
…To try and settle cases.” (T. at 53).
{¶10} By Judgment Entry filed May 17, 2023, the trial court found,
Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendants owed him rent for one month in the amount of $910.00 and
$100.00 late fee. He also proved he was entitled to damages for the
following items:
Carpet cleaning (as set out in the lease addendum) $197.34
Water/Sewer bill $146.80
Gas bill $79.41
Electric bill $48.04
Light globe $10.00 Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 4
Plaintiffs other damages requests related to normal wear and tear or
were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,491.59. As
plaintiff is entitled to the security deposit, defendant's owe plaintiff $481.59.
{¶11} On May 30, 2023, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
{¶12} By Judgment Entry filed May 31, 2023, the trial court denied the Motion for
Reconsideration.
{¶13} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING A NUMBER OF CLAIMS
FOR DAMAGES WHEN THERE WAS COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS
TO THE DAMAGES AND COSTS.
{¶15} “II. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT HAVE A COST HEARING
THAT HELFRICH REQUESTED.
{¶16} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING HELFRICH'S STANDARD
TO A BURDEN OF PROOF.”
I.
{¶17} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying certain claims for damages and costs. We disagree.
{¶18} Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all
the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being
against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio
St.2d 279, 280, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). When reviewing a judgment under a manifest Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 5
weight standard, an appellate court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the
trier of fact are correct. State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d
1264, ¶ 24. Mere disagreement over the credibility of witnesses or evidence is not
sufficient reason to reverse a judgment. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio
St.3d 77, 81, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).
{¶19} Appellant herein argues that the trial court should have allowed damages
for removal and replacement of the carpet and carpet padding, including hauling away
old carpet/padding, as well as the cost of labor for cleaning of the stove and refrigerator,
linoleum and tile floors, and bathroom (shower, tub and toilet). He claims he paid
someone $840 to do this work and to travel to the stores to pick up the materials, change
light globe and thermostat, etc.
{¶20} In a case between a landlord and a tenant, a landlord is not entitled to
damages for repairs to a rental property where the damages resulted from reasonable
wear and tear. Bibler v. Nash, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5–05–09, 2005–Ohio–5036, ¶ 18.
{¶21} Courts generally view the need for cleaning and repainting costs between
tenants, even for leases as short as one year, as the sole responsibility of the landlord.
See, e.g., Swartz v. Luker, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA91-07-051, 1991 WL 278243, 1991
Ohio App. LEXIS 6319 (Dec. 30, 1991) (finding cleaning and painting costs did not
constitute damage beyond ordinary wear and tear); see also Kelley v. Johnston, 4th Dist.
Gallia No. 01CA5, 2001-Ohio-2622 (finding carpet cleaning and painting costs did not
exceed ordinary wear and tear after a three and one-half year tenancy). Landlords
“cannot seek to hold [their tenants] responsible for its own required maintenance of the
premises. This is a normal cost of doing business.” Kovac v. Whay, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 6
No. 65469, 1994 WL 581528, 6, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4720, 15 (Oct. 20, 1994); See
also Calanni v. Stowers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106618, 2018-Ohio-4025, ¶ 51.
{¶22} Upon review of the transcript, we find that the trial judge was fully engaged
in the hearing. He asked Appellant questions, specifically seeking clarification or
explanation for estimated costs. Contrary to Appellant's assertion that the court “ignored
the fact that [Appellant] told (Appellee] to never touch the property and there was labor
extended.” (Appellant’s brief at 10). However, we find the trial court specifically addressed
the issue in the Judgment Entry, stating “Plaintiffs other damages requests related to
normal wear and tear or were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”
{¶23} After a full review of the record, we conclude that Appellant and the trial
court simply disagree on the monetary amount for property damages. As this is not an
adequate basis for reversal, Seasons Coal, supra, we find Appellant's argument to be
without merit.
{¶24} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶25} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
not holding a cost hearing. We disagree.
{¶26} Appellant herein included a request for sanctions pursuant to R.C.
§2323.51, which permits a trial court to award a party in a civil action who is adversely
affected by frivolous conduct court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable
expenses incurred in connection with the action. R.C. §2323.51(B)(1).
{¶27} Upon review, we find that Appellant is not entitled to sanctions or a hearing
to determine attorney fees under R.C. §2323.51, because Appellant in this case is a pro Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 7
se litigant. State ex rel. Freeman v. Wilkinson, 64 Ohio St.3d 516, 517-18, 597 N.E.2d
126 (1992). The Ohio Supreme Court clearly held that “R.C. 2323.51 provides for attorney
fees, not compensation for pro se litigants.” Id. at 517. See also Sallock v. Tillimon, 6th
Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1241, 2023-Ohio-3193, ¶ 31.
{¶28} As it is undisputed that at all times Appellant herein was a pro se litigant,
and because attorney's fees can only be awarded to attorneys, we find Appellant was not
entitled to a hearing on his motion.
{¶29} Appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken and the Court
overrules same.
III.
{¶30} In his third assignment of error, Appellant states the trial court erred in
“holding [Appellant’s] standard to a burden of proof.”
{¶31} In this “Assignment of Error”, Appellant expresses his unhappiness with the
judicial system, including the trial court and this Court, and “points out its prejudice.”
(Appellant’s brief at 11).
{¶32} Upon review, we find this assignment of error contains no legal argument.
Appellant's arguments are unclear, particularly as these issues are not discussed within
an appropriate assignment of error. Appellant also does not specify which local rules,
statutory provisions, or case law on which he predicates his arguments.
{¶33} As Appellant has failed to make any legal argument under this assigned
error, we have nothing to address. Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 0048 8
{¶34} Appellant’s third assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.
{¶35} The decision of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
JWW/kw 1128