JOHN R. STOWE Appellant
CHUCK'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, LLC Appellee
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY
OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CVF 1501913
M. WALPOLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
TERRENCE UFHOLZ, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
John R. Stowe appeals the judgment entered on June 12, 2017,
by the Barberton Municipal Court. We affirm in part, and
reverse and remand in part.
Beginning in February 2013, Mr. Stowe entered into a
commercial lease agreement with Chuck's Automotive Repair
LLC ("Chuck's Automotive") whereby Chuck's
Automotive provided him with storage and warehouse space in
one of the buildings it owned. Mr. Stowe filed a complaint
against Chuck's Automotive in October 2015, and an
amended complaint in December 2015, stating a claim for
damage to Mr. Stowe's pickup truck allegedly caused by
shingles that had come from the roof of the storage space, as
well as a consumer sales practices claim pursuant to R.C.
1345.03. Chuck's Automotive filed an answer to the
amended complaint and asserted a counterclaim for Mr.
Stowe's alleged failure to pay for automotive repairs. A
trial was conducted in May 2016, and on August 2, 2016, a
magistrate's decision was entered in favor of Chuck's
Automotive as to Mr. Stowe's amended complaint and
dismissing the counterclaim.
On August 16, 2016, Mr. Stowe filed his objections to the
magistrate's decision, stating:
Plaintiff objects to the [magistrate's] finding that:
1. Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that his truck was damaged by shingles which fell
from the roof of Defendant's building;
2. Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Defendant was negligent in his upkeep and/or
repair of the roof;
3. Defendant failed to claim, argue, or offer any proof that
the damage to Plaintiff s truck was from an act of God;
4. Repairs to Plaintiffs wife's automobile were not a
"Consumer Transaction" and therefore not subject to
[R.C.] 1345.02 et seq.
Stowe noted he would supplement his objections with specific
references to testimony and exhibits after being provided
with the transcript of the proceedings. Mr. Stowe's
supplement, filed on October 28, 2016, does not state any
additional objections to the magistrate's decision, not
does it address the four original objections separately;
rather, the supplement is divided into a section setting
forth the background of the case, a section offering a
statement of facts, and a section captioned "LAW AND
On January 3, 2017, the trial court overruled Mr. Stowe's
objections "with the exception of the 'act of
God' finding, " which it struck from the
magistrate's decision on the grounds that such a defense
was neither plead nor argued. An attempted appeal of that
order was dismissed by this Court because the trial court had
failed to independently enter a judgment. Subsequently, on