COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73009 EDWARD ALLEN CHANEY : : JOURNAL ENTRY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : : AND v. : : OPINION GERALDINE NEELEY BEARD-CHANEY : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 16, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Cleveland Heights Municipal Court, Case No. CVI-970350. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Edward Allen Chaney P.O. Box 18001 Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118 For Defendant-appellant: Geraldine Neeley Beard-Chaney, pro se 16141 Brewster Road East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 -2- LEO M. SPELLACY, J.: Defendant-appellant Geraldine Neeley Beard-Chaney, pro se, appeals from the judgment entered in favor of her former husband, plaintiff-appellee Dr. Edward A. Chaney1. For the reasons adduced below, we affirm. A review of the record on appeal indicates that plaintiff filed a small-claims complaint on April 3, 1997 against defendant, seeking $876.33 plus punitive damages, interest and costs. It was alleged in the complaint that on April 21, 1995, at approximately 4:30 p.m., in the vicinity of the City of Cleveland Heights City Hall, defendant's automobile struck the door of plaintiff's 1991 Lexus 400 automobile, causing physical damage to the vehicle. Defendant answered the complaint on May 5, 1997, denying the claims against her and further asserting that plaintiff was not the registered owner of the 1991 Lexus. On June 23, 1997, the matter was heard before a magistrate, at which time both parties appeared pro se and testified. The hearing record indicates that at the time of the incident, the parties' cars were parked near one another at several locations in the parking lot as they engaged in a continuing domestic squabble over the subject of the plaintiff's visitation with his daughter. Finally, plaintiff's vehicle was stopped beside the sidewalk in front of the main door to the City Hall, with plaintiff in the 1Appellee has filed no appellate brief. -3- driver's seat2. While there, defendant's vehicle pulled up beside the plaintiff's vehicle, at which time the defendant opened her driver's door and exited, causing her door to strike the Lexus' driver's door which was a couple of feet from the defendant's vehicle. The defendant then walked up to the plaintiff's vehicle and sprayed chemical mace on him through the open window of the driver's door and then through the open sunroof as the driver's window was being closed. Some of the mace struck the eleven-year- old daughter who was seated in her father's vehicle in the passenger seat. The daughter also testified and generally corroborated the plaintiff's testimony. The plaintiff submitted a number of exhibits, see footnote 3 below, as well as a photograph of the damaged car door (Plaintiff's Exhibit A) and a photocopy of a State of Delaware motor vehicle registration card (for the period of May 11, 1994 through January 15, 1998) and a vehicle title (issued May 31, 1994) listing the Lexus vehicle and addressed to the plaintiff and Ms. Velma Navalo as co-owners, which copy was taken from the original which was presented to the court (Plaintiff's Exhibit I and J). The defendant denied ever damaging plaintiff's vehicle and asserted that plaintiff was not the owner of the Lexus. The magistrate issued her report on June 25, 1997, finding in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $822.83 plus interest and costs. Defendant filed objections to the magistrate's report on 2The parties were at the City Hall to exchange their daughter with one another after a visitation period with the plaintiff. -4- July 2, 1997, and an amended objection on July 8, 1997. On July 15, 1997, the trial court approved the magistrate's report. This appeal presents five assignments of error. I THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED HEARSAY DOCUMENTS INTO EVIDENCE WHICH IT CONSIDERED IN FINDING FOR THE PLAINTIFF. II THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED UNVERIFIED, UNTRUSTWORTHY ESTIMATES AND RECEIPTS IN DETERMINING AWARD TO PLAINTIFF. III THE COURT ENTERED IT'S (SIC) FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF FAULTY EVIDENCE. IV THE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PARTIES AND HER TESTIMONY UPON THE SUBPOENA OF HER PLAINTIFF FATHER. V THE COURT SOLICITED TESTIMONY OF THE PLAINTIFF AS TO WHAT OTHER PERSONS SAW AND NOTED. Instead of addressing the assignments seriatim in the argument section of her appellate brief, appellant's argument section consists of addressing the two issues contained in her statement of the issues portion of her appellate brief. The two issues contained therein generally allege the following: (1) the trial court erred in considering Plaintiff's Exhibits B through H because -5- they were allegedly not properly authenticated3; and, (2) the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff was the owner of the Lexus since her ex-husband plaintiff had, in the past, declared that he was not the owner of the Lexus. See appellant's brief, at 2. As to the first issue concerning the admission into evidence of certain exhibits, the record of the magistrate's hearing reflects that defendant, at no time, objected to the use of these exhibits. Accordingly, any error in the admission of such evidence was waived for appellate purposes. First Federal S. & L. Assn. of Akron v. Cheton & Rabe (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 137. Also, we do not conclude that this case warrants the application of the plain error doctrine. See Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116, syllabus, which states: In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the 3Plaintiff's Exhibits B through H consist of the following: (1) Exhibit B itemized repair estimate dated April 28, 1995, in the amount of $782.92 by J.S.I. Collision Centers; (2) Exhibit C a letter, dated April 29, 1995, from J.S.I. Collision Centers to plaintiff detailing general information concerning repairs at that shop; (3) Exhibit D itemized repair estimate dated April 30, 1995, in the amount of $822.83 by Fenohr's Auto Body; (4) Exhibit E the Fenohr's Auto Body repair estimate with the notation Paid in full 5-5-95"; (5) Exhibit F affidavit of Allen Long, plaintiff's insurance agent; (6) Exhibit G Cleveland Heights police report of the incident dated April 21, 1995; (7) Exhibit H written statement of the daughter which was included in the police report of April 21, 1995, in which the daughter stated that her mother's car door hit the side of her father's car, leaving white paint from the mother's car on her father's car. -6- judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself. (Citations omitted.) As to the second issue, appellant attempted to rebut plaintiff's assertion of a legal interest in the Lexus by offering into evidence documents from another case involving the parties in which Ms. Navalo claimed to have sole ownership of the Lexus and that Mr. Chaney was a trustee of the vehicle for the benefit of Ms. Navalo. See Defendant's Exhibits 4-6. Without phrasing it as such, appellant seemingly argues that the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff had a legal interest in the Lexus was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Confronted with the competing evidence represented by the State of Delaware vehicle title and motor vehicle registration listing plaintiff and Ms. Navalo as co- owners of the Lexus as of May 1994, the trial court acted within its discretion in weighing the evidence and determining that, at the time of the incident and the hearing, plaintiff had a legally recognized ownership interest in the vehicle. Accordingly, the two issues presented are found to be without merit. Assignments overruled. Judgment affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his 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 Heights 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. Exceptions. JAMES M. PORTER, P.J., and DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR. ______________________________ LEO M. SPELLACY 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 of decision by the .