J&S Motors, L.L.C. v. Hendking

2025 Ohio 2925

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 18, 2025
• Docket: 2024-L-088
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as J&S Motors, L.L.C. v. Hendking, 2025-Ohio-2925.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY

J&S MOTORS, L.L.C., CASE NO. 2024-L-088

Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Willoughby Municipal Court

YOLANDA P. HENDKING, Trial Court No. 2024 CVI 03725 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: August 18, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed

J&S Motors, L.L.C., 30251 Euclid Avenue, Unit A, Wickliffe, OH 44092 (Plaintiff- Appellee).

Yolanda P. Hendking, pro se, 1752 Victoria Road, Cleveland, OH 44112 (Defendant- Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Yolanda P. Hendking, appeals the judgment of the Willoughby

Municipal Court that awarded appellee, J&S Motors, LLC (“J&S”), $2,737.00 plus interest

for unpaid vehicle repairs. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

{¶2} In August 2024, J&S filed a small claims complaint against Hendking for

$1,034.97 plus $17.00 per day for vehicle storage. J&S alleged Hendking had authorized

the repair of her vehicle, a 2003 Honda Pilot, and then refused to pay and pick up the

vehicle. Attached to the complaint was a June 4, 2024 written estimate for $2,000.00 in repairs to the vehicle’s transmission and rear window. A handwritten notation on the

estimate indicated that Hendking approved the repairs over the phone on June 10 at 6:23

p.m. Also attached to the complaint was a June 27 invoice for $1,034.97 for the repair of

the transmission, signed by Hendking (or her representative, as the signature is unclear)

on the same day, authorizing the repair.

{¶3} On September 23, 2024, a hearing was held before a magistrate and both

parties testified. J&S entered into evidence a photograph of the vehicle’s broken rear

window; a photograph of a rusted transmission that was being stored in the back of the

vehicle; a series of text messages between the parties from June 20 to June 28; and a

June 28 letter from J&S to Hendking informing her the invoice for the repairs to her vehicle

was past due.

{¶4} The text communications revealed that on June 20, J&S requested payment

of the deposit, and Hendking attempted to pay electronically. J&S also reminded

Hendking that the used transmission J&S had found for her was going to be sold to

someone else if she did not pay the deposit. The following day, J&S informed her the

transmission was no longer available, and she could pay for storage of the vehicle or give

J&S the title for the vehicle. The parties texted each other for the next few days regarding

the car title. The messages further revealed Hendking eventually dropped off the title,

unsigned, and then retrieved the title but did not return it, signed or otherwise.

{¶5} The magistrate issued a decision, concluding that based on the evidence

presented at trial, J&S proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence and should

be awarded $2,737.00 plus interest.

PAGE 2 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088 {¶6} On September 25, 2024, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision

and notified the parties they had 14 days to file objections.

{¶7} On October 3, 2024, Hendking filed an objection, requesting a new trial.

{¶8} On October 7, 2024, Hendking filed additional objections, requesting the

trial court to reconsider the facts and evidence. She contended J&S misled the court

regarding which transmission she brought in for service, i.e., the transmission that was

operating in her vehicle, not the rusty transmission that was stored in the rear of her

vehicle. She attached J&S’s photographic evidence with her typed clarifications under

each photo, an invoice for the purchase of a used transmission, dated September 5, 2023,

and an affidavit in which she attested to the invoice.

{¶9} The following day, the managing member of J&S, John Mariano Sr.,

submitted an affidavit averring that J&S was not contesting which transmission Hendking

requested to be serviced; rather, it was seeking relief for the repairs to the transmission

that had been previously installed in the vehicle by a prior technician.

{¶10} On October 24, Hendking requested the audio transcript from the

September hearing.

{¶11} On November 12, the trial court overruled Hendking’s objections, noting

Hendking raised factual and evidentiary matters that were not presented or should have

been presented at trial, she did not indicate the evidence was not available at the time of

trial, and she failed to file a transcript of the hearing. After conducting an independent

review of the record, the court found no error of law or other defect evident on the face of

the magistrate’s decision and affirmed its judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision,

PAGE 3 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088 awarding judgment to J&S in the amount of $2,737.00 plus interest at the statutory rate

of 8% annum from the date of judgment.

{¶12} Hendking timely appealed and raises the following assignments of error:

{¶13} “[1.] The trial court erred in accepting the appellee’s evidence, specifically

the photograph of the transmission, which does not correspond to the transmission

[Hendking] brought in for service.

{¶14} “[2.] The trial court erred in finding [Hendking] authorized the work

performed by the appellee.

{¶15} “[3.] The trial court erred in failing to consider any evidence, including the

timeline of communications and the affidavit from [her] mechanic, which demonstrate[s]

that the appellee misrepresented the facts.

{¶16} “[4.] The trial court erred in failing to apply Ohio consumer protection laws,

which require written authorization for motor vehicle repairs exceeding $25.”

{¶17} The standard of review for small claims proceedings is abuse of discretion.

Terrell v. Morgan Furniture, 2022-Ohio-3981, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.). Similarly, we review a trial

court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Covert v. Kanieski,

2011-Ohio-4170, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to

exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-

1900, ¶ 62 (2d Dist.), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004).

{¶18} In her assignments of error, Hendking challenges the factual matters and

evidence presented at trial and the evidence she submitted after the magistrate’s hearing,

and she raises new claims for the first time on appeal. More specifically, she contends

J&S falsely represented which transmission she wanted repaired, the trial court failed to

PAGE 4 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088 consider the evidence she attached to her objections, and the magistrate erred by finding

that she authorized the repairs because J&S failed to obtain her written authorization for

the vehicle repairs as required by the Ohio Consumer Protection Act (“OCPA”), R.C.

Chapter 1345 et seq., and Adm.Code 109:4-3-13.

{¶19} Hendking’s arguments are not well taken.

{¶20} First, “[u]nder Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), parties are required to support any

objection to a magistrate’s decision with ‘a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the

magistrate relevant to that fact or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not

available.’ Failure to provide an acceptable record to the trial court permits the trial court

to ignore any objections to factual matters that may have been challenged.” (Citation

omitted.) Covert at ¶ 19. “‘Even in the context of small claims hearings, Civ.R. 53 must

be strictly followed. It is well-settled law that when an appellant fails to provide a transcript

or an alternative to a transcript as provided for in the civil rules, “there is nothing for us to

pass upon and we must presume the validity of the trial court proceedings and affirm the

judgment below.”’” Id. at ¶ 20, quoting Beres v. G.S. Bldg. Co., 2007-Ohio-6564, ¶ 20

(11th Dist), quoting DeCato v. Goughnour, 136 Ohio App.3d 795, 799 (7th Dist. 2000).

Because Hendking failed to support her factual objections pursuant to Civ.R. 53, she is

precluded from arguing factual determinations on appeal. Id. at ¶ 19.

{¶21} Second, the evidence Hendking attached to her objections, i.e., a copy of

J&S’s photograph exhibits, her affidavit, and the invoice for the purchase of a

transmission in 2023, should have been presented to the magistrate during the trial.

Alternatively, as the trial court noted in overruling Hendking’s objections, Hendking could

have moved for admission of the evidence under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) (“the court may hear

PAGE 5 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088 additional evidence but may refuse to do so unless the objecting party demonstrates that

the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced that evidence for

consideration by the magistrate”). See Fackelman v. Micronix, 2012-Ohio-5513, ¶ 23 (8th

Dist.) (“[h]ad appellant wished the trial court to consider it, he should have presented it to

the magistrate, or he could have moved for its admission under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d)”).

{¶22} Third, Hendking failed to raise any OCPA claims against J&S in the trial

court. An appellate court cannot consider issues or claims that were not raised in the

lower court. Cunningham v. Protect Autoworks, 2016-Ohio-4745, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.), citing

Ray v. Petersen, 2002-Ohio-6575, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.) (“[i]t is axiomatic that a party cannot

raise issues for the first time on appeal that were not raised below”); State ex rel. Quarto

Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 80 (1997) (“[o]rdinarily reviewing courts do not

consider questions not presented to the court whose judgment is sought to be reversed”).

See also Bourgeois v. Thompson, 1998 WL 516306, *1 (5th Dist. Aug. 17, 1998) (the

appellant failed to plead any violations of the OCPA in the trial court and cannot raise

these new issues for the first time on appeal).

{¶23} Lastly, Hendking failed to cite to any legal authorities pursuant to App.R.

16(A)(7) in support of her assignments of error. This rule provides: “The appellant shall

include in its brief . . . [a]n argument containing the contentions . . . 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.”

App.R. 16(A)(7). “An appellant ‘bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on

appeal.’” Tally v. Patrick, 2009-Ohio-1831, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.), quoting S. Russell v.

Upchurch, 2003-Ohio-2099, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.). “‘It is not the obligation of an appellate

PAGE 6 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088 court to search for authority to support an appellant’s argument as to an alleged error.

See Kremer v. Cox (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60 . . . . Furthermore, if an argument

exists that can support appellant’s assignments of error, “it is not this court’s duty to root

it out.” Harris v. Nome, 9th Dist. No. 21071, 2002-Ohio-6994.’” Id., quoting Upchurch at

¶ 10. “Accordingly, we may disregard an assignment of error that fails to comply with

App.R. 16(A)(7).” Id.

{¶24} We recognize the difficult task pro se litigants face when representing

themselves; however, “we must adhere to the established rule that ‘“[p]ro se litigants are

held to the same standard as other litigants and are not entitled to special treatment.”’”

State v. Ober, 2019-Ohio-843, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.), quoting Karnofel v. Kmart Corp., 2007-

Ohio-6939, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting In re Salsgiver, 2003-Ohio-6420, ¶ 46 (11th Dist.).

{¶25} Since there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the

magistrate’s decision, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in overruling

Hendking’s objections and affirming its judgment adopting that decision.

{¶26} Finding Hendking’s assignments of error to be without merit, the judgment

of the Willoughby Municipal Court is affirmed.

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

PAGE 7 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088 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

Willoughby Municipal Court is affirmed.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE MATT LYNCH

PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, 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 8 OF 8

Case No. 2024-L-088