United States of Am. v. Myers
This text of 2016 Ohio 7817 (United States of Am. v. Myers) 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 United States of Am. v. Myers, 2016-Ohio-7817.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C.A. No. 15CA0105-M
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DAVID A. MYERS, et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellees CASE No. 14CIV1300
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: November 21, 2016
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, the United States of America acting through the Rural
Development, United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), appeals the judgment of the
Medina County Court of Common Pleas granting judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees,
David and Tracie Myers, on its foreclosure claim. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
I.
{¶2} On December 30, 2002, David Myers executed a promissory note in the amount
of $127,900.00 at an annual interest rate of 6.00% in order to purchase real estate situated in the
village of Chippewa Lake, Ohio. On the same day, Myers executed a subsidy repayment
agreement, which entitled the government to recoup the subsidy paid on Myers’ behalf in the
event of foreclosure. Myers and his wife, Tracie, also signed a mortgage securing the
promissory debt to the property. Myers ultimately defaulted on the promissory note in 2010. 2
{¶3} On December 5, 2014, the USDA filed a foreclosure action in the Medina County
Court of Common Pleas against David and Tracie Myers,1 as well as John Burke, the Medina
County Treasurer.2 The Myerses filed an answer denying the allegations set forth in the USDA’s
complaint.
{¶4} The matter ultimately proceeded to a bench trial, which was held on September
10, 2015, before a magistrate. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the magistrate admitted all of
the USDA’s proposed exhibits into evidence except for one. Specifically, the magistrate
sustained the Myers’ objection as it pertained to the admissibility of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, a non-
original, uncertified copy of the purported mortgage document. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Exhibit
6 was not admitted into evidence.
{¶5} On October 1, 2015, the magistrate issued a decision finding that the promissory
note signed by Myers was in default. As such, the magistrate granted judgment in favor of the
USDA and against Myers in the amount of $148,050.78 plus interest at the default rate of 6.00%,
plus advances for taxes and insurance. However, because the mortgage was not admitted into
evidence, the magistrate granted judgment in favor of the Myerses as to the USDA’s foreclosure
claim. The USDA filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision on October 15, 2015,
arguing that the magistrate erred by not admitting a copy of the mortgage into evidence. The
trial court held a non-oral hearing on the USDA’s objection to the magistrate’s decision. On
November 24, 2015, the trial court overruled the USDA’s objection and adopted the magistrate’s
decision.
1 The USDA included Tracie Myers in the lawsuit because she has a dower interest in the property.
2 The USDA included the Medina County Treasurer in the lawsuit, alleging that he “may have a claim for real estate taxes.” 3
{¶6} USDA filed this timely appeal, raising one assignment of error for our review.
II.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred when it failed to admit a copy of a mortgage into evidence, thus granting in favor of the Defendants as to the foreclosure of their mortgage.
{¶7} In its sole assignment of error, the USDA argues that the trial court erred by not
admitting the copy of the mortgage into evidence. We disagree.
{¶8} A trial court possesses broad discretion with respect to the admission of evidence.
State v. Ditzler, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 00CA007604, 2001 WL 298233, *2 (Mar. 28, 2001), citing
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 265 (1984). The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he
admission of such evidence lies within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing
court should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the absence of an abuse of discretion that has
created material prejudice.” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008–Ohio–6266, ¶ 66, citing
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006–Ohio–2815, ¶ 62. An abuse of discretion is more
than an error of judgment; it implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the
abuse of discretion standard, we may not simply substitute our own judgment for that of the trial
court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993).
{¶9} In declining to admit Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 in the present case, the magistrate made
a specific finding of fact determining that the USDA presented insufficient evidence to
authenticate the copy of the mortgage document. In its objection to the magistrate’s opinion, the
USDA argued that the magistrate’s refusal to admit this exhibit was error, as the copy of the
mortgage should have been admitted into evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 902(8), which states that 4
“[d]ocuments accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided
by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments” are self-
authenticating.
{¶10} However, although a transcript was prepared for purposes of appeal, we are
precluded from reviewing it in this case because the transcript was not filed with the trial court.
Lewis v. Savoia, 9th Dist. Summit No. 17614, 1996 WL 490256, *2 (Aug. 28, 1996), citing State
ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (1995). Additionally, this
Court has held that “in the absence of a transcript of proceedings, affidavit, or additional
evidentiary hearing, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to adopt a finding of fact made
by a magistrate.” Crislip v. Crislip, 9th Dist. Medina No. 03CA0112-M, 2004-Ohio-3254, ¶ 6.
“In such a case, the trial court may only examine the ultimate legal conclusions in light of the
facts found by the magistrate.” Id. Where no transcript or affidavit is provided, appellate review
of the trial court’s findings is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting
the magistrate’s decision. Duncan at 730.
{¶11} After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by overruling the USDA’s objection and adopting the magistrate’s decision.
In his decision, the magistrate specifically found that the USDA failed to authenticate the copy of
the mortgage, as “there was no testimony [that] the [USDA’s] witness compared the copy [of the
mortgage] to the original mortgage and the copy is not certified as correct by the county
recorder.” Although the USDA filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision, it did not
file a transcript of the proceedings with the trial court. As such, the trial court was obligated to
adopt the magistrate’s factual findings. See Crislip at ¶ 6. We therefore conclude that the trial
court did not err by overruling the USDA’s objection and adopting the magistrate’s decision. 5
{¶12} The USDA’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶13} With the USDA’s sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment
of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 Ohio 7817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-am-v-myers-ohioctapp-2016.