[Cite as Hyden v. Ingram,
2024-Ohio-4959.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
PREBLE COUNTY
EMANUEL HYDEN, JR., :
CASE NO. CA2023-12-018
Appellant and Cross-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 10/15/2024
- vs -
:
JOHN INGRAM, :
Appellee and Cross-Appellant. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM EATON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. CVF2300139
Emanuel Hyden, Jr., pro se.
Jacob A. Kovach, for appellee and cross-appellant.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant/cross-appellant, John Ingram, appeals a decision of the Eaton
Municipal Court granting a judgment in favor of plaintiff/cross-appellee, Emanuel Hyden.
{¶ 2} In October 2020, Hyden and Ingram became partners in a horse racing
business. The parties agreed to split profits, losses, and expenses equally. The
agreement was verbal. The parties purchased two horses, Always Surprising Us ("ASU")
Preble CA2023-12-018
and Jumanji Jack ("JJ"). As time progressed, the parties' relationship deteriorated.
Although each had incurred expenses related to the horses, neither shared expense
information with the other. Meanwhile, both horses suffered health issues. The parties
agreed to sell ASU in July 2022; ASU sold for $5,000. ASU's buyer gave a $5,000 check
to Ingram who deposited the check and kept the sale proceeds.
{¶ 3} Consequently, on October 11, 2022, Hyden, acting pro se, filed a complaint
in the Eaton Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, seeking judgment of $5,800 for
expenses he had incurred for ASU. On November 17, 2022, Ingram filed a counterclaim
for $4,873.57 for expenses he had incurred for ASU and JJ during the partnership. On
March 16, 2023, Hyden filed a second small claims complaint against Ingram seeking
judgment of $6,000 for expenses he had incurred for JJ. On the same day, Ingram moved
to transfer the case to the court's regular docket. The municipal court subsequently
consolidated Hyden's two small claims complaints and ordered that the case be
transferred to the court's regular docket.
{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a bench trial in August 2023. Hyden appeared pro
se. Both parties testified. Both submitted exhibit evidence of the expenses they had
incurred for ASU and JJ. Hyden submitted Exhibit 9, a chronological list of the expenses
he had incurred from November 2020 through mid-September 2022; attached to the
exhibit were numerous invoices as well as checks written by Hyden. Ingram submitted
31 exhibits; the majority of the exhibits consisted of invoices as well as payments made
by Ingram between January 2021 and July 2023. The municipal court admitted into
evidence Hyden's Exhibit 9 and Ingram's Exhibits A through EE, with the exception of
Exhibits X and AA. Following trial, the municipal court ordered that JJ be sold at auction.
JJ was sold for $6,500, and the sale proceeds were deposited in the IOLTA account of
Ingram's counsel.
-2-
Preble CA2023-12-018
{¶ 5} On November 30, 2023, the municipal court granted a judgment in favor of
Hyden. The court noted Ingram's failure to file an answer to Hyden's complaints, and
Hyden's failure to file an answer to Ingram's counterclaim. The municipal court found that
Hyden was entitled to $3,660.00 on his claim relating to ASU, by deducting his one-half
share of ASU's purchase price ($2,140) from his claim for $5,800, and to $3,910 on his
claim relating to JJ, by deducting his one-half share of JJ's purchase price ($2,090) from
his claim for $6,000, for a total amount of $7,570. The trial court also found that Ingram
was entitled to $4,873.57 (the sum he claimed in his counterclaim) and to an additional
$485 for costs he advanced for the sale of JJ, for a total amount of $5,358.57. The
municipal court then netted the amounts each party had incurred in expenses, found that
Hyden had incurred $2,211.43 more in expenses than Ingram, and awarded Hyden one
half of that amount, or $1,105.71.
{¶ 6} The municipal court next found that ASU and JJ sold for a total of $11,500,
of which each party was entitled to $5,750. Noting that Ingram kept the $5,000 from the
sale of ASU and Ingram's counsel deposited the $6,500 sale proceeds for JJ into his
IOLTA account, the municipal court found that Hyden was entitled to a $6,855.71
judgment, consisting of $5,750 (one-half of the total proceeds sales) and $1,105.71 (the
excess expenses Hyden had incurred).
{¶ 7} Hyden appealed the trial court's decision to this court. Ingram cross-
appealed from the same decision, raising two cross-assignments of error. On May 6,
2024, we dismissed Hyden's appeal on the ground his pro se amended brief did not
comply with both the Appellate and Local Rules of Procedure. See Loc.R. 11(G).
{¶ 8} Ingram's Cross-Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT BASED
UPON NEITHER PARTY FILING AN ANSWER TO THE PENDING COMPLAINTS.
-3-
Preble CA2023-12-018
{¶ 10} In granting judgment in favor of Hyden, the municipal court noted that
neither party had filed answers to the other party's claims. Ingram argues that the
municipal court erred in rendering a judgment on that ground because this was akin to
the municipal court improperly granting a default judgment where responsive pleadings
are not required in the court's small claims division. Ingram further argues that the
municipal court did not base its decision upon the evidence presented at trial.
{¶ 11} Civ.R. 1(C)(4) provides that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure are
inapplicable in small claims matters under R.C. Chapter 1925. Thus, the provisions of
Civ.R. 12(A)(1) relating to the service of an answer to a complaint were not applicable
while this matter was pending in the municipal court's small claims division. However,
once a small-claims case is transferred to the regular docket of the municipal court, the
provisions governing small-claims proceedings under R.C. Chapter 1925 no longer apply.
Scott v. Wells, 2022-Ohio-471, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure apply
to any civil case pending in the regular docket of the civil division of a municipal court.
Id., citing Roark v. Kelly Heating & Air,
2014-Ohio-5807, ¶ 5 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 12} Neither party cites authority for whether the origination of a case in the small
claims division relieves a party of the obligation to file a responsive pleading upon transfer
to the municipal court's regular docket. R.C. 1925.10, the transfer statute, does not
address the issue. We have found two cases indicating that a small claims case does
not necessarily lose its small-claims character upon being transferred to the regular
docket. See McDonald v. Ohio Packaging Corp., 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1948 (5th Dist.
May 16, 1988) (Civ.R. 54[C] inapplicable upon transfer to the municipal court's regular
docket); Campbell v. Union Twp. Serv. Dept.,
2005-Ohio-7162 (M.C.). The municipal
court did not order the parties to file answers after the case was transferred to its regular
docket.
-4-
Preble CA2023-12-018
{¶ 13} In any event, Ingram's main argument is that the municipal court did not
consider the evidence presented at trial and simply granted default judgment in favor of
each party based upon their complaint/counterclaim because neither had filed answers.
However, the record clearly shows that it is not what the municipal court did. The
municipal court conducted a bench trial, admitted the parties' exhibits, and advised the
parties it would go through all the exhibits. The court's analysis and several references
to the parties' testimony in its November 30, 2023 decision plainly indicates that the
municipal court considered the evidence presented at trial in rendering its judgment.
Likewise, the court's subsequent findings of facts and conclusions of law indicate it
considered the testimony and exhibits presented by each party in rendering its judgment.
{¶ 14} Ingram's first cross-assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 15} Ingram's Cross-Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 16} THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 17} Ingram argues that the municipal court's judgment in favor of Hyden is a
miscarriage of justice. Ingram asserts that he is owed $8,233.87 and that Hyden is owed
$5,760, and that "[t]he grand total is $13,993.87 in expenses with a difference of
$2,473.87 in favor of [Ingram]. [Ingram] is owed $2,473.87 from [Hyden] for unpaid
expenses related to the care of the horses through 2022."
{¶ 18} The standard of review for a manifest weight challenge in a civil case is the
same as that applied to a criminal case. Halcomb v. Greenwood, 2019-Ohio-194, ¶ 36
(12th Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman,
2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 17. In considering a manifest
weight challenge, a reviewing court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of
-5-
Preble CA2023-12-018
justice warranting reversal and a new trial ordered. Halcomb at ¶ 36. A judgment will not
be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence where the judgment is
supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the
case.
Id.
{¶ 19} "In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of
the presumption in favor of the finder of fact." In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 14. "The
underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the
knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their
demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the
credibility of the proffered testimony."
Id. "If the evidence is susceptible of more than one
construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent
with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and judgment."
Id.
{¶ 20} In challenging the municipal court's judgment, Ingram underlines Hyden's
request he be reimbursed $1,700 for stakes and his trial admission that Exhibit 9 includes
expenses for a third horse owned solely by Hyden. At trial, Ingram challenged the
inclusion of Hyden's stakes payments in Exhibit 9, stating the parties each paid stakes for
one of the horses at the time of entry.
{¶ 21} At trial, the municipal court advised Hyden that only documents attached to
Exhibit 9 in support of a listed expense would be considered as evidence. Exhibit 9 lists
three separate charges for stakes, totaling $1,250. While a check number was listed next
to each of the stakes charges, the checks were not attached to Exhibit 9 and thus, were
not considered by the municipal court. Furthermore, Hyden plainly conceded at trial that
each party paid one-half of the stakes at the time of entry.
{¶ 22} Regarding Hyden's expenses relating to a third horse, Hyden testified that
although Exhibit 9 included a handful of expenses for three horses, he was only seeking
-6-
Preble CA2023-12-018
to be reimbursed for two-third of the expenses. Unlike other expenses that had smaller
dollar amounts in parentheticals indicating the actual reimbursements Hyden was
seeking, the three expenses listing three horses lacked parentheticals. However, Hyden
testified it was an oversight on his part and apologized. We therefore find no merit to
Ingram's arguments regarding stakes and the unrelated horse.
{¶ 23} Though his counterclaim was for $4,873.57 for expenses he had incurred
for the care of ASU and JJ in 2021 and 2022, Ingram claims on appeal that Hyden owes
him $8,233.87 for expenses Ingram incurred for the horses through 2022. Although
Ingram presented numerous exhibits in support of his counterclaim, he does not cite to
any of his exhibits and likewise fails to cite to the record in the argument section of his
brief. "The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal rests with the party
asserting error." Sparks v. Sparks, 2011-Ohio-5746, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). It is not the duty
of an appellate court to search the record for evidence to support an appellant's argument
as to any alleged error. Hellmuth v. Stephens,
2023-Ohio-4592, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.). An
appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played
on an appeal.
Id.
{¶ 24} Although Ingram was represented by counsel at trial, the testimony of the
parties and the presentation of their exhibits at trial were difficult to follow and at times
confusing and disjointed. Nonetheless, the record shows that both parties incurred
expenses related to ASU and JJ, and that they both refused to discuss them or work
together to net the expenses to keep each party's expenditures equal. Relying on the
evidence presented by the parties, the court found that both parties had proven their
respective case, found that Hyden had incurred more expenses than Ingram, and granted
judgment in favor of Hyden. The judgment is supported by competent, credible evidence.
We therefore find that the municipal court's November 30, 2023 judgment in favor of
-7-
Preble CA2023-12-018
Hyden is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 25} Ingram's second cross-assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 26} Judgment affirmed.
BYRNE, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-8-
