Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-04-2022

Case Style:

DIX ROAD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC vs. SUSAN BROWN and STEVEN C. KRUMINS

Case Number: C-210657

Judge:

Beth A. Myers; Presiding Judge


Robert C. Winkler
Robert C. Winkler
concur

Court:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO


On Appeal From The Hamilton County Municipal Court




Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Cincinnati, OH - Breach of Contract Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and cMoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.



Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800


Defendant's Attorney: John Mulvey

Description:

Cincinnati, Ohio - Breach of Contract lawyer represented defendant with a breach of contract suit.



Dix filed a complaint against Brown and Krumins, who were former
tenants of Dix, asserting claims for breach of contract and a violation of R.C. 5321.01
et seq. The complaint alleged that Brown and Krumins failed to pay rent, late fees, pet
fees, utilities, maintenance charges, and other similar charges, and that, contrary to
the requirements under the parties’ lease and the requirements imposed on them
pursuant to R.C. 5321.05, they caused physical damage to the property, beyond normal
wear and tear. Dix sought $5,796.03 in damages, as well as pre-and post-judgment
interest “at the contract rate of 18% per year (lease at §1.7) or the current legal rate,
whichever is greater, from the date Defendants surrendered possession of the subject
premises.”
{¶3} Brown and Krumins asserted counterclaims for unjust enrichment and
breach of contract against Dix. The case was tried before a municipal court magistrate.
On October 27, 2021, the magistrate issued a judgment following trial in favor of Dix
on both its claims and on Brown and Krumins’s counterclaims. She awarded Dix
judgment in the amount of $4,438.08, but did not award pre-or post-judgment
interest.
{¶4} On November 10, 2021, Dix timely filed objections to the magistrate’s
decision, arguing that the magistrate erred in failing to award Dix pre-and postjudgment interest. On November 15, 2021, the trial court issued an entry adopting the
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
3
magistrate’s decision. The entry made no reference to or mention of the objections
that Dix had filed.
{¶5} Dix appeals from the trial court’s entry, arguing in a single assignment
of error that the trial court erred in granting judgment to Dix without awarding preand post-judgment interest.
Failure to Rule on Objections
{¶6} This court only has jurisdiction to review final orders and judgments.
Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2); R.C. 2505.03. A decision issued by a
magistrate remains interlocutory until a trial court “(1) rules on any objections, (2)
adopts, modifies, or rejects the magistrate’s decision, and (3) enters a judgment that
determines all the claims for relief.” 255 Fifth Street Holdings LLC v. Chemed Sislin,
LLC, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200083, 2020-Ohio-5248, ¶ 5; Civ.R. 53(D)(4).
{¶7} Here, the trial court’s entry did not comply with the first requirement
necessary to render an interlocutory decision issued by a magistrate final. The trial
court never ruled on the objections filed by Dix. The entry made no mention of the
objections and did not indicate whether the trial court overruled them or found them
to be well taken

Outcome: Because the trial court failed to rule on the pending objections, the
magistrate’s decision remained interlocutory and the trial court’s entry was not a final, appealable order. We consequently lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: