Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Akin v. Bushong

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 24, 2017

David Akin, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dennis Bushong, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County M.C. No. 2016 CVI 20106 Municipal

         On brief:

          David Akin, pro se.

         Argued:

          David Akin.

         On brief:

          Dennis Bushong, pro se.

          DECISION

          HORTON, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Dennis Bushong, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court granting plaintiff-appellee, David Akin, pro se, damages in the amount of $1, 300 plus court costs and interest. For the following reasons, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On July 5, 2016, appellee filed a lawsuit in the small claims division of the Franklin County Municipal Court claiming that he hired appellant to color stain and finish a custom built-in media center made of birch/poplar wood, and that appellant's work was defective. As a result, appellee demanded $3, 000, plus court costs and interest, in damages. (Compl. at 1.)

         {¶ 3} The case was tried before a magistrate on September 21, 2016. On October 28, 2016, the magistrate found in favor of appellee and awarded damages of $1, 300, plus costs and interest. The magistrate's decision also stated that "[a] party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any findings of fact or conclusion of law contained in this decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)." On November 1, 2016, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and ordered judgment for appellee. (Jgmt. Entry at 1.)

         {¶ 4} On November 18, 2016, appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On January 13, 2017, the trial court filed a judgment entry that states in relevant part:

Case called before court on objection filed by defendant. Objection was filed more than fourteen (14) days after decision of magistrate which was journalized on November 1, 2016. Also, defendant did not file transcript of hearing. Therefore, defendant's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.