JUDGMENT ENTRY

This matter came before the court on the objections of the defendant Patricia Martin to the Magistrate's Decision dated April 19,2004.

The court will not consider any objections to the magistrate's findings of fact because such objections must be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that fact or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. (Ohio Civil Rule 53(E)(3)(c)). A transcript was available at all times in video or digital form. No transcript was presented by the defendant. The court will confine its review to questions of law.

The defendant presented no sound legal rationale concerning an objection resulting from the delay of time between the hearing date and the decision date. There are only vague references to the possibility of accurate recall and the possibility of error. This is not an objection made with particularity. The objection ignores the fact that the magistrate had a video or digital transcript available for his review and along with his notes. There is nothing presented to indicate that the delay of time resulted in an inability of the magistrate to recall and apply the facts.

The magistrate applied the law correctly when he held that damages must be proven either by cost or repairs or diminution of value. The decision reflects his conclusion that the defendant failed to present credible evidence as to either measure of damages. The question of whether or not the evidence presented was adequate proof of damages is a factual finding to be made by the magistrate and there is no transcript to indicate where and if the magistrate erred. The court finds that the magistrate had the right to determine whether or not adequate proof was presented regarding damages.

The defendant suggests that the hearing could have been bifurcated as to liability and damages. Neither party had asked for this case to be bifurcated and there was no reason to do so. Both par-ties should have been ready to present all evidence regarding liability and damages at the time of the trial.

The defendants argument that the magistrate refused to accept relevant proffered evidence is not well taken. Defendant cited the exclusion of evidence regarding other evictions and argued that this evidence should be admissible under Evidence Rule 613(C). Evidence Rule 613 deals with impeachment by self contradiction. The proffered evidence did not involve self contradiction or a prior inconsistent statement. Evidence Rule 613(C) does permit prior inconsistent conduct but only in the context as that conduct provides evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. It appears that the proffered evidence was really an attempt to attack the character of the witness. This evidence would not be admissible under Evidence Rule 608(B) because specific instances of conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witnesses character for truthfulness may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. This evidence was also not admissible pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B). The magistrate did not err in refusing to hear this evidence.

There is nothing presented by the defendant to substantiate their claim that the plaintiff was unable to properly present her case because she was rattled by comments by the magistrate or any other conduct.

The court finds that there is no merit to the defendants objections to the magistrate report and the court affirms the magistrate's decision and adopts it as the order of this court.

The Clerk shall serve the parties a copy hereof by regular mail per Civil Rule(s) 53/58.

Having trouble finding what you are looking for, then search our site below:

	www.ohiolandlordtenant.com