Volume 219 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Breach of warranty summary judgment. Plaintiff brought claim against car dealer and manufacturer alleging a defect in a vehicle purchased from the dealer. Plaintiff did not supply evidence that a warranty existed by attaching evidence of the warranty to the complaint or by attaching evidence of the warranty to a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. The complaint further alleged that plaintiff took the vehicle to defendants only once to repair the claimed defect. Plaintiff only appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. Because plaintiff did not provide evidence that a warranty existed and did not provide evidence that manufacturer was provided a reasonable opportunity to remedy the claimed defect, the trial court properly granted summary judgment.

Nonconforming brief civil bench trial vehicle warranty Lemon Law. Based on the existing appellate record, appellant cannot prevail on her claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Furthermore, the Lemon Law is not applicable to the used vehicle appellant purchased.

The trial court erred when it determined uncorroborated deposition testimony from the nonmoving party could not, alone, create a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment. By disregarding the deposition testimony as "self-serving," the trial court improperly weighed the evidence, a role reserved for the fact-finder at trial. Because the trial court failed to consider all Civ.R. 56 evidence in the record, the cause is remanded for a proper consideration of the evidence.

Defendant exclusively and explicitly appealed from the trial court's entry denying his post-sentencing motion for reconsideration of the final judgment entry ordering the forfeiture and destruction of firearms as part of the defendant's criminal sentence. Because there is no rule allowing a party to move for reconsideration of a final judgment at the trial court level, the entry on which this appeal is based is a nullity. Appeal of post-judgment entry denying reconsideration dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CONTRACTS – PROCEDURE/RULES – MAGISTRATES – OBJECTIONS - APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL: The trial court did not err in finding that defendant wife was a party to a contract with plaintiff design studio, even though only her defendant husband had signed it, where she was listed as a client in the contract, the design studio produced plans for the yard of husband and wife's shared residence, and the design studio, husband and wife all acted in a manner showing she was a party to the contract. The trial court did not err in finding that defendants were liable under the contract where defendants failed to specifically object the magistrate's conclusion that they were liable, and therefore, forfeited all but plain error on appeal. Because defendants did not raise the issue of plain error on appeal, they forfeited the right to plain-error review on appeal.