Interstate Development Limited Partnership v. Briggs

Interstate Dev. Ltd. Partnership v. Briggs, 2021 Ohio 2259 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021) · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County · July 1, 2021 · No. 109578

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of Interstate Development Limited Partnership in a lease dispute involving unpaid rent and the tenant's counterclaims. The court held that, without a transcript, it had to presume the regularity of the trial court's proceedings and could not review the manifest-weight challenge. It also held that the judicial-disqualification argument was forfeited because it was not raised below and no affidavit of disqualification was filed.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County
Writing for the Court
Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr.; Anita Laster Mays; Eileen T. Gallagher
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 1, 2021
Docket number
109578
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed a Cleveland Heights Municipal Court judgment entered after a trial on the plaintiff's lease-breach and payment-on-account claims and the defendant's counterclaim.
Standard of review
A manifest-weight challenge is reviewed based on the record, and when the appellant fails to provide a transcript necessary to review the claimed factual error, the appellate court presumes the regularity and validity of the lower court's proceedings. Claims of judicial bias or disqualification not raised in the trial court or through the statutory affidavit procedure are not considered on appeal.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Tiera Briggs v. Interstate Development Limited Partnership
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

breach of contractlandlord tenantappellate procedurepreservation of errorcivil procedure

Practice areas

ContractsReal estateAppellate procedureCivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the municipal court's judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
  2. Whether the trial judge should have been disqualified based on alleged bias and prior familiarity with Briggs.

Holdings

  1. When an appellant challenges a finding as unsupported by or contrary to the weight of the evidence but fails to provide the transcript necessary to review the issue, the appellate court must presume the regularity and validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm.
  2. An appellate court will not consider a judicial-bias or disqualification claim that was not raised in the trial court and was not presented through the statutory affidavit-of-disqualification procedure.

Key quotations

When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings and affirm. (at 199)
Because Briggs failed to file a transcript of the proceedings in this matter, we must accept the factual findings of the trial court and cannot find that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Conclusion)

Factual background

Interstate and Briggs entered into a lease for Suite 217 of the Douglas Fine Arts Building in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, requiring Briggs to pay $325 per month in rent. Briggs occupied the premises from January 2013 until August 2015 and owed $3,770 in rent when she vacated. Briggs alleged that Interstate breached the lease by failing to maintain the building, entering her unit without notice or permission, and refusing to replace the blinds. After trial, the municipal court awarded Interstate $3,445 and rejected Briggs's counterclaim.

Procedural history

Interstate sued Briggs in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court for breach of a lease agreement and payment on account. Briggs answered and filed a counterclaim alleging that Interstate breached the lease and caused her to vacate the premises. After trial, the municipal court awarded Interstate $3,445 and ruled in its favor on the counterclaim. Briggs appealed, challenging the manifest weight of the evidence and the trial judge's failure to disqualify himself.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…