Heitmeyer v. Arthur
| Decision Date | 28 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5-22-01 |
| Parties | Alicia HEITMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary ARTHUR, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Dorothy L. Williams, Decatur, for Appellant.
William E. Clark, Fayetteville, for Appellee.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Alicia Heitmeyer ("Heitmeyer"), appeals the January 26, 2022 judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas awarding her $392.16 as to her conversion claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This case stems from Heitmeyer's allegation that her father, defendant-appellee, Gary Arthur ("Gary"), established a bank account for her under the Uniform Transfer to Minors Act ("UTMA"), and that he converted the funds in that account for his own benefit.
{¶3} On June 11, 2020, Heitmeyer filed a complaint against Gary in the trial court alleging claims for conversion and punitive damages. On August 20, 2020, Gary filed an answer along with a third-party complaint against Dianne M. Arthur ("Dianne"), Heitmeyer's mother, alleging a claim for contribution. Dianne filed her answer to Gary's third-party complaint on October 2, 2020. However, Gary dismissed his third-party compliant against Dianne without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) on July 2, 2021.
{¶4} The case proceeded to a hearing before the trial court's magistrate on July 2, 2021, after which the trial court's magistrate permitted the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.1 On September 21, 2021, the trial court's magistrate concluded that Heitmeyer failed to prove that the account is an UTMA account or that any transfer occurred while Heitmeyer "was still a ‘minor’ under the [U]TMA." (Doc. No. 59). However, because Heitmeyer demonstrated that she deposited two paychecks into the account, the trial court's magistrate concluded that Heitmeyer should be awarded $392.16.2
{¶5} On October 5, 2021, Heitmeyer filed her objections to the magistrate's decision. However, Heitmeyer failed to provide the trial court with a transcript of the hearing conducted before the trial court's magistrate. See Fogt v. Fogt , 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-18-10, 2019-Ohio-1403, 2019 WL 1613020, ¶ 12-14. Gary filed his memorandum in opposition to Heitmeyer's objections to the magistrate's decision on November 9, 2021.
{¶6} On December 13, 2021, the trial court issued its entry overruling Heitmeyer's objections to the magistrate's decision. On January 26, 2022, the trial court issued judgment in favor of Heitmeyer by awarding her $392.16 as to her conversion claim.
{¶7} On February 22, 2022, Heitmeyer filed a notice of appeal. She raises four assignments of error for our review, which we will discuss together.
The Trial Court Erred in Determining That the Evidence Did Not Support a Finding That the Account Was a OTMA Account.
Assignment of Error No. II
The Trial Court Erred in Seeking Clear and Convincing Evidence When the Burden is Clearly Preponderance of the Evidence.
Assignment of Error No. III
The Trial Court Failed to Determine Ownership of the Account.
Assignment of Error No. IV
The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Recognize the Account in Question as a Fiduciary Account.
{¶8} In her assignments of error, Heitmeyer argues that the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate's decision concluding that she did not demonstrate ownership or a right to possess the account (beyond the $392.16). Specifically, Heitmeyer argues that the trial court erred by failing to conclude that the parties established a UTMA account, that she is the owner of the UTMA account, and by failing to award her the full balance of the account.
{¶9} "Generally, ‘[a]n appellate court reviews the trial court's decision to adopt, reject or modify the Magistrate's decision under an abuse of discretion standard.’ " Fogt , 2019-Ohio-1403, at ¶ 17, quoting Tewalt v. Peacock , 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-10-18, 2011-Ohio-1726, 2011 WL 1346847, ¶ 31. An abuse of discretion suggests the trial court's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶10} When reviewing a party's objections to a magistrate's decision, "[t]he trial court may adopt, reject, or modify the magistrate's decision." Sheehan v. Sheehan , 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-19-25, 2020-Ohio-5300, 2020 WL 6703553, ¶ 11, citing Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b). Significantly, when reviewing those objections, "the trial court is ‘not required to follow or accept the findings or recommendations of its magistrate.’ " Id. , quoting Stumpff v. Harris , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21407, 2006-Ohio-4796, 2006 WL 2640232, ¶ 16. "Instead, the trial court ‘shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.’ " Id. , quoting Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d), and citing Stumpff at ¶ 16. "Accordingly, the trial court reviews the magistrate's decision under a de novo standard of review," which is " ‘independent and without deference to the [magistrate's] determination.’ " Id. , citing Stumpff at ¶ 16 ; Canter v. Garvin , 3d Dist. Union No. 14-19-30, 2021-Ohio-99, 2021 WL 164959, ¶ 22, quoting ISHA, Inc. v. Risser , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-12-47, 2013-Ohio-2149, 2013 WL 2316248, ¶ 25.
{¶11} To aid the trial court's independent review, Civ.R. 53(D) specifies that objections to factual findings must "be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available." Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii). Importantly, " ‘[t]he duty to provide a transcript to the trial court rests with the person objecting to the magistrate's decision.’ " Fogt at ¶ 12, quoting Slepsky v. Slepsky , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-032, 2016-Ohio-8429, 2016 WL 7626260, ¶ 20. See also Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii).
{¶12} "Where a party fails * * * to file a transcript of the evidence presented at the magistrate's hearing, the trial court, when ruling on the objections, is required to accept the magistrate's findings of fact and to review the magistrate's conclusions of law based on the factual findings." Fogt at ¶ 13, quoting Nieto v. Marcellino , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2017-G-0146, 2018-Ohio-4952, 2018 WL 6445474, ¶ 15. " ‘ "Where the failure to provide the relevant portions of the transcript or suitable alternative is clear on the face of the submissions, the trial court cannot then address the merits of that factual objection because the objecting party, whether through inadvertence or bad faith, has not provided all of the materials needed for the review of that objection." ’ " (Emphasis sic.) Id. , quoting Nieto at ¶ 15, quoting Wade v. Wade , 113 Ohio App.3d 414, 418, 680 N.E.2d 1305 (11th Dist.1996).
{¶13} " ‘ "On appeal of a judgment rendered without the benefit of a transcript or affidavit, an appellate court only considers whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts as set forth in the magistrate's decision." ’ " Id. at ¶ 17, quoting In re Estate of Stanford , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23249, 2010-Ohio-569, 2010 WL 597100, ¶ 22, quoting In re Estate of Lucas , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23088, 2009-Ohio-6392, 2009 WL 4547854, ¶ 32.
{¶14} As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Heitmeyer failed to provide the trial court with a transcript of the evidence presented at the hearing conducted before the trial court's magistrate. Consequently, this court will consider only whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts as set forth in the magistrate's decision. See generally In re Estate of Lucas at ¶ 32.
{¶15} Nevertheless, on appeal, Heitmeyer contends that the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate's decision concluding that Gary converted only $392.16 from the account. "Conversion is the ‘ "wrongful exercise of dominion over property to the exclusion of the rights of the owner, or withholding it from his possession under a claim inconsistent with his rights." ’ " Warnecke v. Chaney , 194 Ohio App.3d 459, 2011-Ohio-3007, 956 N.E.2d 908, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Toma v. Corrigan , 92 Ohio St.3d 589, 592, 752 N.E.2d 281 (2001), quoting Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 551 N.E.2d 172 (1990). " ‘The elements of conversion are: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiff's property rights; and (3) damages.’ " Id. , quoting Miller v. Cass , 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-09-15, 2010-Ohio-1930, 2010 WL 1740891, ¶ 32. "To prevail on a claim of conversion, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving all the elements necessary to sustain that claim by a preponderance of the evidence." Hutchings v. Hutchings , 6th Dist. Sandusky, 2019-Ohio-5362, 150 N.E.3d 548, ¶ 19. See also Burson v. Peoples Bank , 3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-92-31, 1993 WL 373523, *2 (Sept. 1, 1993) (). But see Dice v. White Family Cos. , 173 Ohio App.3d 472, 2007-Ohio-5755, 878 N.E.2d 1105, ¶ 58 (2d Dist.) ().
{¶16} "A ‘preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of the evidence that is necessary to destroy the equilibrium.’ " Golan-Elliot v. Elliot , 3d Dist. Union No. 14-17-01, 2017-Ohio-8524, 2017 WL 5256363, ¶ 53, quoting Reed v. Reed , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-09-63, 2010-Ohio-4550, 2010 WL 3732261, ¶ 10. See also In re J.B. , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-15-79, 2016-Ohio-2670, 2016 WL 1622046, ¶ 33 ().
{¶17} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Heitmeyer's objections and...
To continue reading
Request your trial