.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 15CA010764
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
REGINAL JOHNSON, et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 13CV179740
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 7, 2016
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Northwest Auto Sales appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court
of Common Pleas that granted the State’s petition for civil forfeiture of a certain Mercedes Benz
vehicle. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} The State filed a civil action for forfeiture against Reginal Johnson, Northwest
Auto, and various others regarding real and personal property including a certain 2008 Mercedes
Benz. The petition alleged that, while the automobile was titled to Northwest Auto, Johnson was
the de facto owner with equitable interest. The respondents answered and the parties engaged in
discovery. All matters were resolved as to all the property except for the Mercedes. That matter
was heard at a bench trial before the magistrate, who issued a decision recommending forfeiture
of the Mercedes upon finding that Johnson used the car in the facilitation of a felony and that
Northwest Auto was not an innocent owner. Four days later, the trial court adopted the
2
magistrate’s decision, granted the State’s petition, and ordered forfeiture of the Mercedes. No
party filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Northwest Auto filed a timely appeal, raising
three assignments of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS
AN INSTRUMENTALITY AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN [R.C.]
2981.01(A)(6) & 2981.02(A)(3), AND FURTHER FOUND THAT THE STATE
OF OHIO MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT SUCH VEHICLE SHOULD
BE FORFEITED UNDER FAVOR OF R.C.[ ] 2981.05.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT NORTHWEST AUTO
SALES WAS AN INNOCENT OWNER AS DEFINED IN [R.C.] 2981.01(A)(5).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE MAGISTRATE ERRED AND THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED THE
ADMISSION OF HEARSAY STATEMENTS MADE BY ANOTHER, IN
VIOLATION OF [EVID.R.] 801 & 804.
{¶3} Northwest Auto argues that the trial court erred by granting the State’s civil
forfeiture petition as it related to the Mercedes. This Court disagrees.
{¶4} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) allows any party to file written objections to a magistrate’s
decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, regardless of whether or not the trial
court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period. Although the court may enter
judgment within the fourteen-day period from the filing of the magistrate’s decision, “the timely
filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of
the judgment until the court disposes of those objections ….” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). In this
case, the magistrate issued a decision in favor of the State. Although the trial court adopted the
3
magistrate’s decision four days later, Northwest Auto retained the ability under the civil rules to
file timely objections to that decision. It did not, however, file any objections.
{¶5} Except for a claim of plain error, Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) prohibits a party from
assigning as error on appeal to this Court the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision,
including any factual findings or legal conclusions, unless that party has filed objections to those
findings or conclusions below. Because Northwest Auto failed to file written objections to the
magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law it now challenges, it has forfeited its right to
raise those issues on appeal. See Karcher v. Chadima, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21485, 2004-Ohio-
956, ¶ 9. Moreover, Northwest Auto has not alleged plain error and this Court will not create
this argument on its behalf. See Children’s Hosp. of Akron v. Paluch, 9th Dist. Summit No.
27557,
2015-Ohio-2375
, ¶ 6.
{¶6} Northwest Auto’s assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶7} Northwest Auto’s three assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
4
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, J.
CANNON, J.
CONCUR.
(CANNON, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment pursuant to
§6(C), Article IV, Constitution.)
APPEARANCES:
MYRON P. WATSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD A. GRONSKY, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.
