Volume 194 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

The trial court did not commit reversible error when it imposed court costs in its judgment entry without informing appellant at sentencing that she would be required to pay court costs. Judgment affirmed.

EXPRESS WARRANTY – NEGLIGENCE – FRAUD – ACCEPTANCE – SMALL CLAIMS COURT – AS-IS WARRANTY: The trial court's determination that defendant was negligent in the repair of plaintiff's just-purchased vehicle was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the vehicle caught fire ten minutes after plaintiff began driving it for the first time after the repair was made, and the trial court was in the best position to determine whose testimony was most credible. The magistrate's fraud finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the defendant disclosed the issue with the vehicle to the plaintiff. Plaintiff purchaser did not have a reasonable opportunity to inspect the vehicle after the repair was made where, after plaintiff test drove the vehicle, defendant car dealer assured plaintiff that it would repair a fuse, the repair was made with a fuse from an older model vehicle, and ten minutes after plaintiff drove her vehicle off the lot it caught fire.

Foreclosure discretion of court to distribute excess funds excess sale proceeds R.C. 2117.06(C) presentment equitable relief default judgment. The trial court properly denied the mortgager-debtor's request for distribution of excess funds from a foreclosure sale when the mortgager-debtor defaulted in the foreclosure action and further failed to present a valid judgment that it obtained on the mortgage agreement.

Sufficiency of the evidence challenge. Criminal trespass. Privilege. Split of authorities.

Appeal following jury trial of juvenile transferred to the general division for criminal proceedings. Under State v. Smith, complicity to purposeful murder is not an equivalent act charged to felony murder by felonious assault, and juvenile court's order finding probable cause to prosecute juvenile for complicity to purposeful murder was not effective to transfer jurisdiction to general division for felony murder prosecution. Interrogation of juvenile who had consulted with and was represented by counsel was violation of juvenile's right to counsel, where counsel had previously and continually informed both police and prosecutor for eight-month period between arrests that juvenile would not consent to an interview, where interrogating officer had previously spoken with counsel and was aware of counsel's representation. Judgment of conviction vacated.