Tyler v. Walker

Ohio Court of Appeals

Tyler v. Walker

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided August 18, 2026·No. L-26-00055·Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

Crystal Tyler Court of Appeals No. {48}L-26-00055 Appellee Trial Court No. CVI-25-15679 v. Robert Walker DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: August 18, 2026

*****

Lucinda J. Weller, for appellee.

Robert Walker, pro se, appellant.

*****

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Robert Walker appeals the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court finding in favor of appellee Crystal Tyler on her small claims action and awarding her $3,443.00 in damages. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On September 15, 2025, Tyler filed a small claims complaint against Walker, alleging that she moved out of their residence and left behind several items. She obtained a civil protection order against Walker, and when she went with the police to retrieve her items, Walker refused to return her couch, refrigerator, washer and dryer, grill, power washer, and trampoline. Tyler sought damages of $4,050.00 plus court costs.

{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate on November 24, 2025. Following the hearing, the magistrate entered a decision finding that Tyler proved that the items were her personal property. The magistrate awarded her judgment in the amount of $3,443.00 plus costs, which reflected a 15% deduction for depreciation in the value of the items.

{¶ 4} Walker objected to the magistrate’s decision, claiming that the evidence showed that Tyler gave the property to him. He further argued that the value of the property did not reflect the condition of the property and the damage she caused to it. Tyler opposed the objections. Notably, the trial court’s docket does not reflect that Walker requested or provided a transcript of the hearing as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).

{¶ 5} On February 17, 2026, the trial court denied Walker’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. It awarded judgment in favor of Tyler in the amount of $3,443.00 plus costs.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 6} Walker now appeals the trial court’s February 17, 2026 decision. He has not identified assignments of error as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but he does list seven arguments:

1. The Judgment is Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.

2. Appellee Voluntarily Relinquished or Gifted the Disputed Items.

3. Appellee Retained Access and Failed to Mitigate.

4. Appellee’s Trampoline Claim Fails for Lack of Causation.

5. Appellee Used Improper Valuation and Failed to Prove Fair Market Value.

6. Appellant Sold Higher-Value Property to Accommodate Appellee.

7. Appellee’s Items Were Inferior in Condition and Value.

III. Analysis

{¶ 7} Each of Walker’s arguments require an examination of the record and the facts that were presented during the hearing before the magistrate. Walker, however, has failed to request or file the transcript of that hearing.

{¶ 8} “It is well-established that an appellant is required to file a transcript for our review.” Polk v. Polk, 2026-Ohio-1630, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980); see also App.R. 9(B)(3) (“The appellant shall order the transcript in writing and shall file a copy of the transcript order with the clerk of the trial court.”). “This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the record.” Id., quoting Knapp at 199. “Without a transcript, a reviewing court must presume the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court.” Id., citing Lavelle v. Lavelle, 2012-Ohio-6197, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 9} Walker attempts to avoid this result by including in his amended appellate brief an App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence. His attempt, however, fails to comply with App.R. 9(C)(1)’s requirements that it be served on Tyler “no later than twenty days prior to the time for transmission of the record pursuant to App.R. 10,” and that it “be forthwith submitted to the trial court for settlement and approval.” As such, this court cannot consider Walker’s proposed App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence.

{¶ 10} Walker also attempts to supplement the record by appending to his amended appellate brief 21 exhibits consisting of photographs, text messages, receipts, and online marketplace listings. But “this court cannot consider any exhibits attached to a party’s briefs that were not made part of the trial court’s record.” Landis Properties 1, LLC v. Sheehan, 2024-Ohio-2755, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.), citing Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023- Ohio-169, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.). Without a complete record including a transcript from the hearing before the magistrate, this court cannot determine whether Walker’s exhibits were presented in the trial court. As such, this court cannot consider them.

{¶ 11} In sum, “[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp at 199. See also Polk at ¶ 18; Yates v. Rigby, 2026-Ohio-732, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.) (“Without a complete transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate court has no alternative but to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment in the trial court.”).

{¶ 12} Accordingly, because Walker failed to file a transcript and record of the proceedings, this court cannot review his claims and must affirm the trial court’s judgment. His assignments of error are not well-taken.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. Walker is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J.

Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

Crystal Tyler Court of Appeals No. {48}L-26-00055 Appellee Trial Court No. CVI-25-15679 v. Robert Walker DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: August 18, 2026

*****

Lucinda J. Weller, for appellee.

Robert Walker, pro se, appellant.

*****

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Robert Walker appeals the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court finding in favor of appellee Crystal Tyler on her small claims action and awarding her $3,443.00 in damages. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On September 15, 2025, Tyler filed a small claims complaint against Walker, alleging that she moved out of their residence and left behind several items. She obtained a civil protection order against Walker, and when she went with the police to retrieve her items, Walker refused to return her couch, refrigerator, washer and dryer, grill, power washer, and trampoline. Tyler sought damages of $4,050.00 plus court costs.

{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate on November 24, 2025. Following the hearing, the magistrate entered a decision finding that Tyler proved that the items were her personal property. The magistrate awarded her judgment in the amount of $3,443.00 plus costs, which reflected a 15% deduction for depreciation in the value of the items.

{¶ 4} Walker objected to the magistrate’s decision, claiming that the evidence showed that Tyler gave the property to him. He further argued that the value of the property did not reflect the condition of the property and the damage she caused to it. Tyler opposed the objections. Notably, the trial court’s docket does not reflect that Walker requested or provided a transcript of the hearing as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).

{¶ 5} On February 17, 2026, the trial court denied Walker’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. It awarded judgment in favor of Tyler in the amount of $3,443.00 plus costs.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 6} Walker now appeals the trial court’s February 17, 2026 decision. He has not identified assignments of error as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but he does list seven arguments:

1. The Judgment is Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.

2. Appellee Voluntarily Relinquished or Gifted the Disputed Items.

3. Appellee Retained Access and Failed to Mitigate.

4. Appellee’s Trampoline Claim Fails for Lack of Causation.

5. Appellee Used Improper Valuation and Failed to Prove Fair Market Value.

6. Appellant Sold Higher-Value Property to Accommodate Appellee.

7. Appellee’s Items Were Inferior in Condition and Value.

III. Analysis

{¶ 7} Each of Walker’s arguments require an examination of the record and the facts that were presented during the hearing before the magistrate. Walker, however, has failed to request or file the transcript of that hearing.

{¶ 8} “It is well-established that an appellant is required to file a transcript for our review.” Polk v. Polk, 2026-Ohio-1630, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980); see also App.R. 9(B)(3) (“The appellant shall order the transcript in writing and shall file a copy of the transcript order with the clerk of the trial court.”). “This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the record.” Id., quoting Knapp at 199. “Without a transcript, a reviewing court must presume the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court.” Id., citing Lavelle v. Lavelle, 2012-Ohio-6197, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 9} Walker attempts to avoid this result by including in his amended appellate brief an App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence. His attempt, however, fails to comply with App.R. 9(C)(1)’s requirements that it be served on Tyler “no later than twenty days prior to the time for transmission of the record pursuant to App.R. 10,” and that it “be forthwith submitted to the trial court for settlement and approval.” As such, this court cannot consider Walker’s proposed App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence.

{¶ 10} Walker also attempts to supplement the record by appending to his amended appellate brief 21 exhibits consisting of photographs, text messages, receipts, and online marketplace listings. But “this court cannot consider any exhibits attached to a party’s briefs that were not made part of the trial court’s record.” Landis Properties 1, LLC v. Sheehan, 2024-Ohio-2755, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.), citing Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023- Ohio-169, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.). Without a complete record including a transcript from the hearing before the magistrate, this court cannot determine whether Walker’s exhibits were presented in the trial court. As such, this court cannot consider them.

{¶ 11} In sum, “[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp at 199. See also Polk at ¶ 18; Yates v. Rigby, 2026-Ohio-732, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.) (“Without a complete transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate court has no alternative but to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment in the trial court.”).

{¶ 12} Accordingly, because Walker failed to file a transcript and record of the proceedings, this court cannot review his claims and must affirm the trial court’s judgment. His assignments of error are not well-taken.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. Walker is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J.

Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

Tyler v. Walker, (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Tyler v. Walker (Tyler v. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

II. Assignments of Error

3. Appellee Retained Access and Failed to Mitigate.

4. Appellee’s Trampoline Claim Fails for Lack of Causation.

7. Appellee’s Items Were Inferior in Condition and Value.

III. Analysis

IV. Conclusion

Related