COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70961 : ACCELERATED DOCKET MINNIE DRUMMER : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION FRIENDSHIP AUTO SALES, INC. : : Defendant-Appellant : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MARCH 13, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Cleveland Municipal Court : Case No. 96-CVI-03966 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: MINNIE DRUMMER, pro se 1467 East 111 Street Cleveland, Ohio 44106 For defendant-appellant: MITCHELL J. YELSKY Attorney at Law Yelsky & Lonardo Co., L.P.A. 1050 Leader Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the records from the Cleveland Municipal Court, and the briefs. Defendant-appellant Friendship Auto Sales, Inc. appeals the judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, which found against the defendant and for the plaintiff, Minnie Drummer, for $2,000, asserting the evidence presented did not prove proximate cause of the damages awarded. Finding no error in the court below, we affirm. The record reflects that this matter arises from a complaint filed on February 22, 1996, against Friendship Auto Sales, Inc. by Minnie Drummer in Cleveland Municipal Court, Small Claims Division. In this complaint, Drummer alleged that defendant Friendship Auto Sales, Inc. caused damage to the engine of her car during its repossession by the defendant on February 16, 1996. The matter was heard before a magistrate on March 27, 1996. The magistrate filed the proposed Decision with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on May 22, 1995, finding for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $2,241.00. This proposed decision rendered judgment in the amount of $2,000, the maximum jurisdictional amount of the Small Claims Court. The - 3 - defendant timely filed its objections to the proposed decision of the magistrate; however, these objections were filed without a transcript or an attached affidavit to support the objections to the findings of fact as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b). On June 10, 1996, the court overruled the defendant's objections to the magistrate's decision and entered judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant timely appealed the decision of the lower court and presents the following sole assignment of error for our review. I. IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO AWARD PLAINTIFF DAMAGES OF $2,241.00 BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3 (MO'S SUNOCO REPAIR ESTIMATE) AS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFEN- DANT'S REPOSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF'S VEHICLE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGES SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3. In its sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the evidence presented at the hearing did not support the lower court's conclusion that the act of repossession by the appellant was the proximate cause of the damages claimed. In essence, appellant complains that it was error for the trial court to adopt the findings of the magistrate over its objections because it claimed those findings were against the weight of the evidence presented. Objections to the decision of a magistrate are governed by Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b). Appellant, when filing its objections to the magistrate's decision, failed to provide the trial court with the transcript or affidavit as required by that rule, which states in - 4 - pertinent part that "*** [a]ny objection to a finding of fact shall 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." The rule further states that "*** [a] party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule." The trial court in this case was warranted in adopting the magistrate's findings and conclusions given the absence of any 1 adequate record to dispute them. Failure to include a transcript or affidavit supporting the objections to the magistrate's report as required by the rule precludes the appellant from contesting the factual findings of the magistrate as adopted by the court below on the basis that the findings were 2 against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, where, as here, the party objecting to a magistrate's report fails to provide the trial court with the evidence and documents by which the court could make a finding independent of the report, the appellate review of the court's findings is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the 1 See Purpura v. Purpura (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 237, 239. 2 See Pappenhagen v. Payne (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 176 at 178; see, also, Frank Lerner & Assoc., Inc. v. Vasey (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 537 at 548. - 5 - 3 magistrate's report. An appeal under these circumstances can be reviewed by an appellate court to determine whether the trial court's application of the law to its factual findings 4 constituted an abuse of discretion. In reviewing the trial court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard, "a presump- tion of validity attends the trial court's action." Volodkevich v. Volodkevich (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 313. "Abuse of discretion" connotes more than mere error; it implies that the court's action was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 OBR 481, 482, 450 N.E.2d 1140, 1142. It is the burden of the appellant to demonstrate that the trial court's decision was unreason- able, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, we shall presume regularity of the proceedings below and will not consider whether any finding of fact made by the magistrate and adopted by the court is against the weight of the evidence but will consider only whether the application of the law to the factual findings constituted an abuse of discretion. The magistrate found from the evidence presented that the repossession of the automobile by the appellant was wrongful and, therefore, that the appellee was entitled to a return of the costs she expended to obtain the release of her car. Further, 3 State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728. 4 Krause v. Krause (Apr. 27, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 66809, unreported. 5 Robbins v. Ginese (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 370, 372. - 6 - the court found by the preponderance of the evidence that the wrongful repossession was the proximate cause of the damage to the car and, therefore, ordered judgment in the amount of the proffered estimate of repair. We conclude that the magistrate's "Decision and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" contains sufficient facts to support the stated conclusions of law. Under these circumstances, based on our review of the record before us, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the attitude of the court below was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its application of the governing law to the facts within the report of the magistrate. We do not find that the trial court's adoption of the magistrates's decision over the unsupported objections of the appellant was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is without merit. The judgment of the court below is affirmed. - 7 - This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement .