Pickett v. Pro Car Assoc., Unpublished Decision (6-30-2006)
Pickett v. Pro Car Assoc., Unpublished Decision (6-30-2006)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} After several months of seeking a mutually agreeable solution, appellee filed suit in small claims court. Upon motion of appellant, the matter was transferred to the civil division of Akron Municipal Court. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. In his motion, appellant alleged that he was not the proper defendant because Pro Car Associates was a duly formed corporation. Additionally, appellant alleged that all the repairs on the vehicle had been performed in a workmanlike manner. The trial court denied the motion and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. At the close of the evidence, the trial court found in appellee's favor and awarded damages against appellant in the amount of $853.51. Appellant timely appealed the trial court's judgment, raising four assignments of error for review. For ease of analysis, this Court has consolidated several of appellant's assignments of error.
{¶ 4} In his first, second and third assignments of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to grant his motion for summary judgment. Specifically, appellant asserts that the sole evidence introduced in his unopposed motion indicated that he was not the proper defendant and that he had a valid defense to the claims raised by appellee. This Court cannot find that the trial court erred.
{¶ 5} The denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewable following a subsequent adverse jury verdict. Balsonv. Dodds (1980),
{¶ 6} An appellant bears the burden of ensuring that the record necessary to determine the appeal is filed with the appellate court. App.R. 9(B). See State v. Williams (1995),
{¶ 7} When the record is incomplete, this Court must presume the regularity of the trial court's proceedings and affirm its decision. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980),
{¶ 8} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it awarded damages to appellee. Appellant's final assignment of error, however, suffers from the same deficiency as the remainder of his appeal. Without a transcript of the proceedings below, this Court must presume that the trial court acted properly based on the evidence presented.Knapp,
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Akron Municipal Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to appellant.
Slaby, P.J. Whitmore, J. concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.