Login | January 25, 2025
Appeals court upholds ruling in home renovation dispute
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 24, 2025
A Franklin County appellate panel upheld a municipal court ruling that awarded a Reynoldsburg woman $200 for an incomplete home renovation project started by a Canal Winchester contractor.
A three-judge panel of the Tenth District Court of Appeals determined that Marquita Glass had failed to support her assertion that texts, photographs and emails would have convinced the trial court that she was due repayment of $6,000 for work not completed.
“The appellant, not this court, must construct the legal arguments in support of her assignments of error,” Tenth District Betsy Luper Schuster wrote for the court. “In the absence of any specific argument developing her general contention of reversible error, Glass fails to demonstrate that any error regarding the exclusion of evidence from consideration was prejudicial to her.”
In December 2023, Glass filed a complaint against that Bonso Eshun in the Small Claims Division of Franklin County Municipal Court, according to case background.
The woman alleged breach of contract on grounds Eshun had not completed the project, therefore leaving the home in a damaged state.
Glass sought a refund of all the payments she made to Eshun for the renovation work, up to the jurisdictional limit.
The matter was tried before a magistrate on Feb. 6, 2024, resulting in a decision awarding Glass $200 as the total remaining refund for work paid for, but not completed, and for material paid for, but not used, summary detailed.
The woman filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, arguing that the magistrate did not account for the incompleteness of the work in the master bathroom, and the magistrate did not consider her text messages and photographs as evidence.
The trial court overruled her objections, adopting the magistrate’s decision.
Glass subsequently appealed to the Tenth District court, arguing that the trial court erred by either omitting or missing the burden of proof in the form of text messages, pictures and emails as evidence.
“Glass essentially argues she was denied due process because the trial court did not permit her to present all of her evidence in support of her claim,” Luper Schuster continued. “This assignment of error is not well-taken.”
The appellate panel noted the discussion at trial between Glass and the magistrate regarding text messages she was considering introducing into evidence.
The woman, however, never introduced them nor did she dispute the magistrate’s impression that text messages would not provide information beyond the already-submitted calendar and testimony.
“Additionally, neither during this discussion nor at any other time at trial, did Glass refer to any emails or photographs relevant to her claim,” Luper Schuster wrote. “Ultimately, Glass controlled the presentation of her own case. If, in her view, certain additional evidence, such as emails or photographs, tended to prove facts of consequence in her case against Eshun, she needed to affirmatively seek the admission of that evidence at trial.”
The panel also noted that Glass failed to explain in her appeal how the additional documents or photographs would prove the contractor’s liability exceeded the $200 award.
Tenth District judges Michael Mentel and Carly Edelstein concurred with Luper Schuster.
Copyright © 2025 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved