COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73292 JENNIFER M. THOMAS : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DYONNE R. JACOBS : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 5, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT CASE NO. 97 CVI 05690 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: JENNIFER M. THOMAS, PRO SE (#P00073292E) 2635 East 73rd Street Cleveland, Ohio 44104 For Defendant-Appellant: THOMAS M. HORWITZ (#0062323) Peltz & Birne 1880 Midland Building 101 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, Ohio 44115 SPELLACY, J.: Defendant-appellant Dyonne Jacobs ( Jacobs ) appeals from the -2- judgment of the municipal court against Jacobs and in favor of plaintiff-appellee Jennifer Thomas ( Thomas ) in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) for the unlawful conversion of Thomas' bedroom furniture by Jacobs. Jacobs assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Finding Jacobs' appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On March 7, 1997, Thomas filed a complaint against Jacobs in Cleveland Municipal Court. In her complaint, Thomas asserted that Jacobs converted her bedroom furniture. The municipal court referred this case to a magistrate for a hearing and decision of all issues of law and fact. During the hearing, Thomas produced a receipt for the bedroom furniture. The receipt indicated the following: (1) on November 2, 1996, Thomas entered into a sales agreement with United Furniture for the purchase of a four-piece bedroom set; (2) the agreed deferred payment price for the furniture was One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Six Cents ($1,523.36); (3) Thomas paid a Two Hundred Dollar ($200.00) down payment to United Furniture on the date of purchase; and (4) pursuant to the sales agreement, Thomas was required to make twenty-four monthly payments of Fifty-Five Dollars and Fourteen Cents ($55.14) to United Furniture. It is undisputed that Thomas lived with Jacobs when she -3- purchased the furniture. Therefore, Thomas had the furniture delivered to Jacobs' residence. However, on February 18, 1997, Thomas moved from Jacobs' residence. At the hearing, Thomas testified that she tried to retrieve her furniture from Jacobs' residence on February 24, 1997, and again on March 4, 1997. According to Thomas, Jacobs refused to allow her to retrieve her property. Jacobs admitted that Thomas was the rightful owner of the furniture in question. In his defense, Jacobs claimed that he provided Thomas with an opportunity to retrieve her furniture after she initiated the underlying case. On July 8, 1997, the magistrate issued her report. In her report, the magistrate concluded that Thomas had demonstrated the following: (1) that she was the titled owner of the furniture; (2) that she had demanded the return of her furniture; (3) that Jacobs had refused to allow her to retrieve her property; and (4) that the value of the furniture at the time of the conversion was One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00). Therefore, the magistrate recommended that judgment be entered in favor of Thomas and against Jacobs in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00). On July 10, 1997, Jacobs filed his objections to the magistrate's decision. On September 8, 1997, the court overruled Jacobs' objections to the magistrate's decision and entered judgment based upon the magistrate's report. II. -4- In his sole assignment of error, Jacobs argues that the municipal court's judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Jacobs argues that the evidence does not support the amount of damages awarded to Thomas. Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus. The measure of damages in a conversion action is the value of the converted property at the time it was converted. Tabar v. Charlie's Towing Service, Inc. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 423, 428. Jacobs contends that Thomas failed to prove that she had any interest in the converted property, at the time of conversion, beyond the Two Hundred Dollar ($200.00) down payment. Jacobs argues that Thomas failed to present any evidence that she had made the subsequent monthly payments. This argument ignores the fact that Thomas was titled owner of the furniture and, pursuant to the sales agreement contract, was obligated to pay to United Furniture Fifty-Five Dollars and Fourteen Cents ($55.14) a month until the bedroom furniture was paid in full. Contrary to Jacob's position, we may not assume that Thomas has breached the sales agreement contract. If Thomas has breached this contract, the sales agreement provides United Furniture with various remedies to collect the balance of the purchase price from -5- Thomas. Accordingly, Jacobs' assignment of error is without merit and his appeal is overruled. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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. TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, P.J. and JOHN T. PATTON, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE -6- N.B. This 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(B) 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 .