FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, October 24, 2025
CAPTION: Ditech Financial, LLC v. Balimunkwe
PPEAL No.: -240060
TRIAL No.: A-1700815
EY WORDS: FORECLOSURE — Forgery — expert witness — evid.r. 702 — Manifest weight of the evidence — magistrates — standing — mortgages — promissory notes — abuse of discretion
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting magistrate’s decision to exclude defendant’s handwriting expert under Evid.R. 702 where that expert failed to notice or indicate that two of the known signatures used as comparators and included in her report were, in fact, duplicates, and where the expert employed methods of magnification that yielded distorted results.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting magistrate’s finding that defendant’s signature on the disputed promissory note and mortgage were not forged, because the magistrate’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, given evidence that defendant had received a court order to refinance his home several months before the mortgage was signed and that highly personal documents regarding defendant’s finances had been transmitted to the lender around that time were included in the mortgage file.
Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest had standing when it filed its foreclosure complaint, because, at the time of filing, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest had been assigned the mortgage on the property.
Plaintiff was not prohibited from introducing evidence of an agreement to modify the interest rate of defendant’s loan where plaintiff alleged the modified interest rate in its complaint and defendant impliedly consented to try issues regarding the applicability and validity of the modification agreement by failing to object to its admission at trial.
A signed and notarized agreement to modify the terms of defendant’s loan was properly admitted as self-authenticating under both Evid.R. 902(B)(8) and (9).
The trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision applying the interest rate in a loan-modification agreement, because a finding that the party listed as note-holder held the note at the time it entered into the agreement with defendant was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: OSTIGNY V. FRANCE
APPEAL NO.: C-240210
TRIAL NO.: A-2103730
KEY WORDS: DAMAGES — CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT — R.C. 1345.09 — HOME SOLICITATION SALES ACT — R.C. 1345.23 — CIV.R. 37 — NOTICE — DISMISSAL — SANCTION — ABUSE OF DISCRETION
SUMMARY: Under R.C. 1345.09(B) of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, the trial court erred in awarding damages beyond the statutory $200 where the consumer only established supplier’s liability for failing to comply with R.C. 1345.23(B)(1) and (2) and did not show any actual pecuniary loss from the proven violation.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs-suppliers’ remaining claims with prejudice under Civ.R. 37 where they did not comply with the court’s order to produce responses by a date certain and failed to offer any reason for the failure to comply, and the discovery requests had been outstanding for over one year at the time of the dismissal.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. RIFFEE
APPEAL NO.: C-240535
TRIAL NO.: 23/CRB/15255/A
KEY WORDS: CRIMINAL LAW/CONSTITUTIONAL — SECOND AMENDMENT — R.C. 2923.15 – HANDLING FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED — DANGEROUSNESS — ARTICLE 1, § 4 OHIO CONSTITUTION — REASONABLE REGULATION — MOTION TO DISMISS
SUMMARY: The trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of handling a weapon while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 2923.15 where that statute did not violate the Second Amendment: R.C. 2923.15 is sufficiently similar to our Nation’s history and traditions of firearm regulation.
The trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of handling a weapon while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 2923.15 where that statute did not violate the Ohio Constitution: limiting an intoxicated person’s use of a firearm is a reasonable regulation substantially related to the safety of the public. [See CONCURRENCE: In certain cases, a general “dangerousness” analysis could be used to more efficiently assess the constitutionality of a challenged firearm regulation.]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: PER CURIAM; CROUSE, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR; MOORE, J., CONCURS SEPARATELY.
CAPTION: GILBERT V. WELTER
APPEAL NO.: C-250090
TRIAL NO.: A-2300731
KEY WORDS: TESTIMONY — OATH — SWEAR IN — EVID.R. 603 — R.C. 2317.30 — — SECTION 7, ARTICLE 1 of the OHIO CONSTITUTION — WAIVER — PLAIN ERROR — MOTION TO STRIKE — CIV.R. 59
SUMMARY: Where an objection to the trial court’s failure to swear in a witness is not timely made, any resulting error is waived.
Where the trial court failed to swear in a witness before the witness testified, the court did not err in allowing the jury to hear the witness’ testimony or in denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike where the court administered a belated oath to the witness after testimony was concluded, the witness swore that the testimony previously given was truthful, plaintiffs had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and the record contained no indication that the witness would have testified differently had the oath been timely administered.
Under these same circumstances, the record did not establish that the trial court’s failure to swear in a witness before that witness testified deprived plaintiffs of a fair trial or resulted in the rendering of a judgment that was contrary to law, and the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ Civ.R. 59 motion to set aside the jury verdict and order a new trial.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.