[Cite as Waliga v. Goon, 2013-Ohio-5687.]
COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEORGE WALIGA : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : -vs- : : MARY GOON, ET AL. : Case No. 13-COA-008 : : Defendants - Appellants : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland Municipal Court, Case No. 12-CV-G-0426
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 6, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
NOAH MUNYER MARY M. GOON, PRO SE 135 Portage Trial RYAN C. HASSINGER, PRO SE Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221 419 Luther Street Ashland, OH 44805 Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Mary Goon and Ryan Hassinger appeal from the
March 14, 2013 Magistrate’s Decision that was adopted by the Ashland Municipal
Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In 2011, appellee George Waliga, as seller, and appellants Mary Goon
and Ryan Hassinger, as buyers, entered into an agreement. Pursuant to the terms of
the agreement, appellants agreed to buy a manufactured home from appellee.
Appellants also rented a lot in a mobile home park owned by appellee for the home.
{¶3} On March 29, 2012, appellee filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint
against appellant Mary Goon and all other occupants of the subject premises. Appellant
Ryan Hassinger was joined as a defendant. Appellants filed an answer and
counterclaim on May 4, 2012, alleging violations of the rental agreement. Appellee filed
an answer to the counterclaim, on May 23, 2012.
{¶4} A trial before a Magistrate was held on September 27, 2012 and October
26, 2012. Pursuant to a Magistrate’s Decision filed on March 14, 2013, the Magistrate
recommended that the trial court grant judgment in favor of appellee and against
appellants. The Magistrate found that appellee was entitled to recover back rent from
appellants in the amount of $1,534.48, $2,115.00 in repair and clean up costs and
$1,500.00 in attorney’s fees. The trial court approved and adopted such decision the
same day.
{¶5} On March 21, 2013, appellant Ryan Hassinger filed a request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law as well as a request that complete audio and video Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 3
recordings of the case be prepared so that he could file objections to the Magistrate’s
Decision. The Magistrate, in an Order filed on March 27, 2013, denied both requests.
The Magistrate found that, in his Decision, he had issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law. He further stated that the court would provide a recording of the
proceeding upon payment of $100.00.
{¶6} Appellant Ryan Hassinger, on March 29, 2013, filed a Motion to Disqualify
the Magistrate on the basis that he was biased. On the same date, he filed a Motion to
Set Aside the Magistrate’s Order of March 27, 2013 denying his request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Appellant, in his motion, asked that the time for filing
objections be extended until such time as the Magistrate filed the same.
{¶7} As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on March 29, 2013, the trial
court overruled appellant Ryan Hassinger’s Motion to Disqualify the Magistrate, Motion
to Set Aside the Magistrate’s Order of March 27, 2013, and his request that the time for
filing objections be extended until such time as the Magistrate filed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court found that the Magistrate’s March 14, 2013 Decision
contained sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶8} Appellants now raise the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶9} “1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE MAGISTRATES DECISION
WAS ADOPTED BY THE COURT WITHOUT CONTAINING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER THE APPELLANT REQUESTED
THEY BE PROVIDED.”
{¶10} “2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN ITS POST JUDGMENT RULINGS
AND ACTIONS SERVED TO HINDER THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANTS Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 4
CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION OF JUSTICE, AND THEREFORE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF US CONT. AMEND XIV.”
{¶11} “3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT’S (SIC) RULING ENFORCED
A VOID CONTRACT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.”
{¶12} “4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT VIOLATED RES JUDICATA
BY ABANDONED (SIC) IT’S (SIC) OWN FINDINGS FOR THE DEFENDANTS AND
STARTING OVER ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLEE OBTAINED COUNSEL.”
{¶13} “5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE MAGISTRATE HELD THE
TRIAL WITH A DISTINCT AND PREJUDICIAL BIAS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.”
{¶14} “6. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD NUMEROUS EX
PARTE MEETINGS WITH THE PLAINTIFF.”
{¶15} “7. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE (SIC) IT REFUSED TO
ENFORCE THE APPELLANTS (SIC) RIGHT TO DISCOVERY.”
{¶16} “8. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO ALLOW THE
DEFENDANT TO IMPEACH HOSTILE WITNESSES.”
{¶17} “9. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CUT OFF THE DEFENDANTS
(SIC) QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES.”
{¶18} “10. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL TO COACH WITNESSES ON THE STAND IN OPEN COURT.”
{¶19} “11. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT’S (SIC) DECISION WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 5
{¶20} “12. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT PROVIDED A SPECIFIC
TIMELINE FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO FINISH THEIR CASE, AND THEN REDUCED
THAT TIMELINE WITHOUT NOTICE.”
{¶21} “13. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE DEFENDANT
CLOSING ARGUMENTS.”
{¶22} “14. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CAUSED THE DOCKET TO
BE FALSELY RECORDED.”
I
{¶23} Appellants, in their first assignment of error, argue that the trial court erred
when it adopted the Magistrate’s Decision without providing findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
{¶24} Civ.R. 53 (D) states, in relevant part, as follows:” (ii) Findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Subject to the terms of the relevant reference, a magistrate's
decision may be general unless findings of fact and conclusions of law are timely
requested by a party or otherwise required by law. A request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law shall be made before the entry of a magistrate's decision or within
seven days after the filing of a magistrate's decision. If a request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law is timely made, the magistrate may require any or all of the parties to
submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law….
{¶25} “(b) Objections to magistrate's decision.
{¶26} Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a magistrate's decision
within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted
the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 6
party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten
days after the first objections are filed. If a party makes a timely request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law, the time for filing objections begins to run when the
magistrate files a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
{¶27} In the case sub judice, the Magistrate’s Decision was issued on March 14,
2013.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Waliga v. Goon, 2013-Ohio-5687.]
COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEORGE WALIGA : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : -vs- : : MARY GOON, ET AL. : Case No. 13-COA-008 : : Defendants - Appellants : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland Municipal Court, Case No. 12-CV-G-0426
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 6, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
NOAH MUNYER MARY M. GOON, PRO SE 135 Portage Trial RYAN C. HASSINGER, PRO SE Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221 419 Luther Street Ashland, OH 44805 Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Mary Goon and Ryan Hassinger appeal from the
March 14, 2013 Magistrate’s Decision that was adopted by the Ashland Municipal
Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In 2011, appellee George Waliga, as seller, and appellants Mary Goon
and Ryan Hassinger, as buyers, entered into an agreement. Pursuant to the terms of
the agreement, appellants agreed to buy a manufactured home from appellee.
Appellants also rented a lot in a mobile home park owned by appellee for the home.
{¶3} On March 29, 2012, appellee filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint
against appellant Mary Goon and all other occupants of the subject premises. Appellant
Ryan Hassinger was joined as a defendant. Appellants filed an answer and
counterclaim on May 4, 2012, alleging violations of the rental agreement. Appellee filed
an answer to the counterclaim, on May 23, 2012.
{¶4} A trial before a Magistrate was held on September 27, 2012 and October
26, 2012. Pursuant to a Magistrate’s Decision filed on March 14, 2013, the Magistrate
recommended that the trial court grant judgment in favor of appellee and against
appellants. The Magistrate found that appellee was entitled to recover back rent from
appellants in the amount of $1,534.48, $2,115.00 in repair and clean up costs and
$1,500.00 in attorney’s fees. The trial court approved and adopted such decision the
same day.
{¶5} On March 21, 2013, appellant Ryan Hassinger filed a request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law as well as a request that complete audio and video Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 3
recordings of the case be prepared so that he could file objections to the Magistrate’s
Decision. The Magistrate, in an Order filed on March 27, 2013, denied both requests.
The Magistrate found that, in his Decision, he had issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law. He further stated that the court would provide a recording of the
proceeding upon payment of $100.00.
{¶6} Appellant Ryan Hassinger, on March 29, 2013, filed a Motion to Disqualify
the Magistrate on the basis that he was biased. On the same date, he filed a Motion to
Set Aside the Magistrate’s Order of March 27, 2013 denying his request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Appellant, in his motion, asked that the time for filing
objections be extended until such time as the Magistrate filed the same.
{¶7} As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on March 29, 2013, the trial
court overruled appellant Ryan Hassinger’s Motion to Disqualify the Magistrate, Motion
to Set Aside the Magistrate’s Order of March 27, 2013, and his request that the time for
filing objections be extended until such time as the Magistrate filed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court found that the Magistrate’s March 14, 2013 Decision
contained sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶8} Appellants now raise the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶9} “1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE MAGISTRATES DECISION
WAS ADOPTED BY THE COURT WITHOUT CONTAINING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER THE APPELLANT REQUESTED
THEY BE PROVIDED.”
{¶10} “2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN ITS POST JUDGMENT RULINGS
AND ACTIONS SERVED TO HINDER THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANTS Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 4
CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION OF JUSTICE, AND THEREFORE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF US CONT. AMEND XIV.”
{¶11} “3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT’S (SIC) RULING ENFORCED
A VOID CONTRACT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.”
{¶12} “4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT VIOLATED RES JUDICATA
BY ABANDONED (SIC) IT’S (SIC) OWN FINDINGS FOR THE DEFENDANTS AND
STARTING OVER ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLEE OBTAINED COUNSEL.”
{¶13} “5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE MAGISTRATE HELD THE
TRIAL WITH A DISTINCT AND PREJUDICIAL BIAS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.”
{¶14} “6. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD NUMEROUS EX
PARTE MEETINGS WITH THE PLAINTIFF.”
{¶15} “7. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE (SIC) IT REFUSED TO
ENFORCE THE APPELLANTS (SIC) RIGHT TO DISCOVERY.”
{¶16} “8. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO ALLOW THE
DEFENDANT TO IMPEACH HOSTILE WITNESSES.”
{¶17} “9. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CUT OFF THE DEFENDANTS
(SIC) QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES.”
{¶18} “10. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL TO COACH WITNESSES ON THE STAND IN OPEN COURT.”
{¶19} “11. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT’S (SIC) DECISION WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 5
{¶20} “12. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT PROVIDED A SPECIFIC
TIMELINE FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO FINISH THEIR CASE, AND THEN REDUCED
THAT TIMELINE WITHOUT NOTICE.”
{¶21} “13. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE DEFENDANT
CLOSING ARGUMENTS.”
{¶22} “14. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CAUSED THE DOCKET TO
BE FALSELY RECORDED.”
I
{¶23} Appellants, in their first assignment of error, argue that the trial court erred
when it adopted the Magistrate’s Decision without providing findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
{¶24} Civ.R. 53 (D) states, in relevant part, as follows:” (ii) Findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Subject to the terms of the relevant reference, a magistrate's
decision may be general unless findings of fact and conclusions of law are timely
requested by a party or otherwise required by law. A request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law shall be made before the entry of a magistrate's decision or within
seven days after the filing of a magistrate's decision. If a request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law is timely made, the magistrate may require any or all of the parties to
submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law….
{¶25} “(b) Objections to magistrate's decision.
{¶26} Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a magistrate's decision
within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted
the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 6
party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten
days after the first objections are filed. If a party makes a timely request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law, the time for filing objections begins to run when the
magistrate files a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
{¶27} In the case sub judice, the Magistrate’s Decision was issued on March 14,
2013. The Magistrate, in his Decision, made the following facts and conclusions of law:
“Plaintiffs have proven their claims for damages for repairs and back rent by the
preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants back
rent of $1,534.48, cost of repair of damages and clean up the sum of $2115.00 and
reasonable attorney fees of $1,500.00.”
{¶28} Appellant Ryan Hassinger, on March 21, 2013, filed a timely request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Magistrate, in an Order filed on March 27,
2013, denied such request, finding that he had issued the same. In response, appellant
Ryan Hassinger, on March 29, 2013, filed a Motion to Set Aside such order. As
memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on March 29, 2013, the trial court overruled
appellant Ryan Hassinger’s Motion to Set Aside the Magistrate’s Order of March 27,
2013, finding that the Magistrate’s March 14, 2013 Decision contained sufficient findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶29} We, however, disagree. The Magistrate’s March 14, 2013 Decision did not
contain findings of fact. Because appellant made a timely request for findings of fact
and conclusions of law, the time for filing objections did not begin to run until the
Magistrate filed a decision that included findings of fact and conclusions of law. Without Ashland County, Case No. 13-COA-008 7
findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellants would not have known what issues to
raise in their objections.
{¶30} Based on the foregoing, appellants’ first assignment of error is sustained.
The remaining assignments of error are moot.
{¶31} Accordingly, the judgment of the Ashland Municipal Court is reversed and
this matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
CRB/dr [Cite as Waliga v. Goon, 2013-Ohio-5687.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEORGE WALIGA : : Plaintiff -Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : MARY GOON, ET AL. : : Defendants - Appellants : CASE NO. 13-COA-008
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Ashland Municipal Court is reversed and remanded. Costs assessed to
appellee.