columbus, ohio 43215-3431 65 south front street, 8^h' … magistrate quinton r, dressel ruled...

SUPREME COURT OF OHIOOFFICE OF THE CLERK

65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 8^h' FLOORCOLUMBUS, OHIO 43215-3431

NEAL C. FOLCK, PRO SE6447 HARBINGER LANEDAYTON, OHIO 45449(937)-475-1790

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

Vs.

SUPREME COURT CASE NO.APPELLATE CASE NO. 2013-CA-35TRIAL COURT CASE NO.12-CV1-2436

NOVEMBER 7, 2t113

ROBERT REDMAN, PRO SE MEMORANDUM FOR SUPPORT OF376 EAST MARKET STREET JURISDICTIONXENIA, OHIO 45385(937)-532-4801

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Now comes Plaintiff-Appeflant, Neal C. Folck, pro se, who is submitting this

MEMORANDUM OF JURISDICTION motion to the Supreme Court of Ohio for their

consideration to review the aforementioned Case No. 2013-CA-35. The following detailed

events took place that support the Supreme Court of Ohio's jurisdiction over this matter.

Folck commenced an action against Redman in the Small Claims Division of the Clark

County Municipal Court on November 1, 2012 in front of Magistrate Quinton Dressel, seeking

damages and costs. A trial was held before a Magistrate. At the trial, Folck testified and also

had a witness familiar with his boat testify about the fact that it had been damaged during the

time Redman rented the boat. Redman and his wife testified that they did not damage the

boat during the rental period. The Magistrate found the testimony of the Redmans to be more

credible than the testimony of Folck and his witness. The Magistrate re

favor of Redman without an arraigning Judge's approval (see attachment)

n

'JAJ. s ; ' Fy ! ^^w^f,•o "t^ ry

s,^{y {t y f ^, s '

n .----_.__m - 3,saw:_ aa- - -

Folck filed an objection to the Magistrate's decision, November 2, 2013 (see

attachment). The Magistrate filed his decision on December 21, 2012, uncharacteristically

without an arraigning Judge's approval (see attachment). Before the trial court took any action

on the Magistrate's decision, Folck filed a Notice of Aapeai and was known as Case No.

13-CA-2 on January 2, 2013 from the Magistrate's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

which the Magistrate filed in the Municipal Court of Clark County Ohio (see attachment) on

December 21, 2012. The Court of Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District, Clark County Ohio

dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. On March 28, 2013, the trial court

overruled Folck's objections to the Magistrate's decision and rendered judgment in favor of

Redman.

A second Notice of Appeal was filed on April 11, 2013 and is known as Case No.

13-CA-35 in the Court of Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District of Clark County. On June 3,

2013 a Show Cause Order was issued by Magistrate Erin E. Scanlon of Court of Appeals of Ohio

Second Appellate District of Clark County that the Appellant's brief had not been filed within

the time allotted.

On August 23, 2013 a Final Entry from Judge Mike Fain of the Court of Appeals of Ohio

Second Appellate District of Clark County was issued where the judgment of the trial court was

affirmed.

On September 3, 2013 Folck filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of

Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District of Clark County (see attachment). Finally, on

September 26, 2013 the Court of Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District of Clark County

issued its Decision and Entry (see attachment).

2

Plaintiff-Appellant Folck, pro se is filing his appeal of the Court's decision within the 45

days allowed for such an appeal. This case is an appeal of a Court of Appeals determination

under Rule 26(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

As the Supreme Court of Ohio can clearly see from the chronology of events, it has

definitely been a struggle for this Plaintiff private business owner to legally collect damages

from a negligent Defendant boat rental customer. The indisputable facts, mistakes in the legal

process, and errors in the assignment of the Plaintiff`s case warrant a thorough review at the

Supreme Court of Ohio level. Plaintiff prays for an opportunity to have his case reviewed and

an obvious ruling in his favor.

Certification of Service

A copy of this APPEAL OF RIGHT has been sent by regular U.S. Mail to the Defendant-

Appellee at his address included above on today's date.

Respectfully submitted,

rLeo,l ^^ 5__̂Zk

Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck, pro se

3

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF CLARK COLTNTY, OHIO

NEAL C. FOLCK

PLAINTIFF,

-vs-

ROBERT REDMAN

DEFENDANT.

CASE NO. 12-CVI-2436

FINDINGS OF FACT I LAND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEC 2 1 2012

Cl ERK t7fi J^CIIVICPAI. Ct3t1R7

This matter has been referred back to the Magistrate to address tl-ie Request for

Findings of Fact ai,d Conclusions of Law, included in Plaintiff's Objection filed on

November 2, 2012.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover for damage to his Sea Ray boat allegedly

caused by Defendant. Both parties appeared and presented evidence at the Noveinber 1,

2012 hearing, at`the. conclusiono,f which the Magistra.te ruled il1 favor of Defendant.

= Iii accordance .witli.l2 u.le; 52,, the ,Magistrate hereby m.akes the following written

findings of fact -and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 30, 2012 Plaintiff Neal C. Fol.ck rented to Defendant Robert Redman

Plaintiff's 2002 Sea Ray boat. The boat was returned to Plaintiff at the end of the day.

2. On July 1, 2012, Plaintiff advised Defendaiit that there were scratches in the bow

area, for which he requested cornpensation

3. Plaintiff testified to his belief that the scratches occurred during the use or

transport by Defen:dant..:tPlai4-tiff's witness and c,ompanion, Virginia Lynn, echoed that

testirziony. -Plaintiff offered blurryblack and white photocopies of undated pictures

Page TwoCase No. 12-CVI-2436

purporting to show the damage. Plaintiff did not observe, and offered no testimony from

anyone who observed, the acttaal infliction of any daznage. Plaintiff offered no direct

evidence of any specific act or omission causing the alleged damage.

4. Defendant testified that he did not carefully inspect the boat upon taking

possession, but did look i.t over before returning it. He adamantly denied causing any

damage during his use or transport of the boat. Defendant's wife also testified that she

observed no fresh daniage, and that they did nothing to cause the scratches complained of

by Plaintiff while they had possession. Defendant testified and offered documents

showing that there had been a severe storm the night before the rental, suggesting tl-iat

any actual damage may have been caused thereby.

5. Plaintiff called no witness to testify as to the diminution in value of the boat as a

result of the alleged scratches, or the reasonableness and necessity of the repair costs he

claiins, Plaintiff did offer a Repair Order from Al Williams Enterprises, dated September

25, 2012, in the amount of $561.75, but no evidence of actual payment of any such

amount

6. Both before the June 30, 2012 rental to Defendant, and between such rental and

the September 25, 2012 Repair Order, the boat in question had been rented to, used by,

and transported by persons other than Defendant.

7. The testimony of Defendant and Mrs. Redman is found by the Magistrate to be

credible. The testimony of Plaintiff and Ms. Lynn is found to be lacking in credibility,

and in some respects beyond the scope of their personal knowledge.

Page ThreeCase No. 12-CVI-2436

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. In order to sustain his burden of proof in this case, Plaintiff was required to

establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the scratches on his boat were

proximately caused by some act or omission of Defendant; and (2) the monetary amount

of any damages reasonably attributable to such act or oznission.

2. T.7pon the evidence presented, Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof,

requiring judgnient in favor of Defendant.

Quirzton R. DresselMagistrate

cc. Neal C. Folck, Plaintiff V,Robert Redinan, Defendant

CLARK COUNTY MUiUICfPAL CC3UR.TSPRINGFIELD, OHIO

NEAL C. FO[.CK6447 HARBINGER LANEDAYTON, OHIO 45449

PLAINTIFF

Vs.

ROBERT REDMAN

376 EAST MARKET STREET

XENIA, OHIO 45385

(937)-532-4801

DEFENDANT.

CASE NO. 12-CVI-0M6..

• 3...^ /yhp3,.

JANUARY 2, 2013

MAGISTRATE QUINTON R. DRESSEL

NOTICE OF APPEAI. ^ J ^ c 4 ^. OD O 23

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now comes Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck, pro se, who objects to the Magistrate Quinton R.

Dressel's decisions of November 1, 2012 and December 21, 2012. The December 21, 2012decision was not endorsed by a JUDGE. Magistrate Quinton R, Dressel ruled that Defendant isentitled to judgment on Plaintiff's claim, and the same will be dismissed at Plaintiff's cost.

Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel was clearly pro Defendant in his decisions. We ClarkCounty Residents, small business owners, and tax payers are not operating a charity for GreeneCounty Resident Defendant, Robert Redman.

The Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick is hereby filing a written NOTICE OF APPEAL for findings offact and conclusions of law. The facts were presented in Court and were overlooked by thebiased Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and Judge Denise Moody, In recent prior Cases no. 11-CV102371 Foick vs. Harvey and Case no. 11-CV1002372 Folck vs. Coleman involving damagesduring boat rentals by the Plaintiff to Defendants, Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and JudgeDenise Moody found that the Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick was entitled to judgments plus costs.These Court Cases were presented exactly as Case no. 12-CV102436 in favor of the Plaintiff, Neal

C. Folck. Moreover, in Case no. 11-CV104004 in Folck vs. Khanzada, Magistrate Quinton R.

Dressel and Judge Denise Moody had their verdicts overturned in favor of Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck

in Appeals Court Case no. 12-CA0018. Additionally, Case no. 11-CV104004 would not be

transferred to the Clark County Court of Common Pleas by Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel for aFAIR HEARING,

Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick requests reconsideration of the facts and a grant of his complaintof $636.75 plus Court costs from the Defendant, Robert Redman. Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick praysfor a judgment and fees against Defendant, Robert Redman of this complaint. Plaintiff, Neal C.Foick also prays for an objective review of the facts an ,1i^^ the Court for the

CLARK COUNTYGOtJRT OF APPEALS

JAN 2 ZOi3

FhLF-D^^,{,^;^,p E. V;NCCn C^C^L^R4(

irresponsible and careless acts of Defendant, Robert Redman that have transpired since, June

30, 2012.

A copy of this objection has been sent to the Defendant by regular U.S. Mail at hislast known address. God speed the correction of this injustice to the Plaintiff.


ftel^ C.Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick, pro sePier 50 Rentals, Owner6447 Harbinger LaneDayton, Ohio 45449

(937)-561-1064

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

/6 So

NEAL FOLCK

Plaintiff-Appellant

Appellate Case No. 13-CA-2

V.

ROBERT REDMAN

Defendant-Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 12-CVI-2436

SHOW CAUSE ORDERFebruary ^ , 2013

It appearing to the court that a notice of appeal was filed in the above-captioned

matter on January 2, 2013 from a November 1, 2012 Magistrate's Decision finding

DefendantlAppellee entitled to judgment on PlaintifflAppellant's claims, and December 21,

2012 Magistrate's Fjndir;gs of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by the Clark County

Municipal Court in case no. 12-CVI-2436; and

it further appearing to this Court that the decisions being appealed may not be final

and appealable in accordance with R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 53(D), where the trial court has

not ruled on objections filed by Appellant to the magistrate's decisions nor entered

judgment.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall show

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

2

cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days from the journaUzation of this entry as to why

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

E. SCANLON, Magistrate

Copies to:

Neal FolckAppellant6447 Harbinger LaneDayton, Ohio 45449

Robert RedmanAppellee376 E. Market StreetXenia, Ohio 45385

Hon. Thomas E. TrempeClark County Municipal Court50 E. Columbia Street, 5`" FloorSpringfield, Ohio 45502

CA3/JN

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRIGT

CLARK COUNTYCOURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

NEAL C. FC ► LCK6447 HARBINGER LANEDAYTON, OHIO 45449(937)-551-1064

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Vs.

ROBERT REDMAN376 EAST MARKET STREET

XENIA, OHIO 45385

(937)-532-4801DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.

F'EB 2 5 2013

F3LEDRONALD E.1IiNCEhIT, CLERK

APPELLATE CASE NO. 13-CA-0002TRIAL CASE NO. 12-CVI-02436

FEBRUARY 25, 2013JUDGE EUGENE NEVIUS

MAGISTRATE ERIN E. SCANLONMAGISTRATE QUINT't3N R. DRESSEL

MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

--- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------- --

Now comes Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Foick, pro se, who states that he received a

Show Cause Order dated February 21, 2013 from Magistrate Erin E. Scanlon of the Court of

Appeals, Second Appellate District, Upon consideration of the Order, Appellant must showcause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days from the journalization of the entry as to why the

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel of the Clark County Municipal Court issued decisions onNovember 1, 2012 and December 21, 2012 in favor of the Defendant/Appellee. The November

1, 2012 Magistrate's Decision found Defendant/Appellee entitled to judgment onPlaintiff/Appellant's claims, and the same will be dismissed at Plaintiff/Appellant's cost. TheDecember 21, 2012 Magistrate's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was issued by theClark County Municipal Court in Case no. 12-CVI-02436. Neither decision was endorsed by a

Judge.

(t appears (see attached Clark County Municipal Court Case Events) that the decisionsbeing appealed may not be final and appealable in accordance with R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R.53(D), where the trial court has not ruled on objections filed by Appellant to the magistrate'sdecisions nor entered judgment. Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Folck prays for a Jud eg's Final

Decision and Apaealable ®rder and has sent a Motion (see attached) to the applicableMunicipal Court Judge described above for resolution. A timely judgment and fees againstDefendant/Appellee, Robert Redman of the original complaint is requested in thePlaintiff/Appellant's favor to recover the monies past due. However, it is very unlikely that theJudge will rule against the Trial Court Magistrate and also the Judge has had sufficient time to

issue a decision and appealable order to the Trial Court Case no. 12-CV1-02436.

Case EventsI'ageIofl

Clark Counfiy Municipal Court02/25/2013 09:49 AM

Guy A. Fergusarn, Clerk

Case Events

Defendant: REDMAN ROBERTCivil Case No: 1202436/1

Events

NEW CASE - REGULAR (600)

SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERT.MAIL. (502)

CERT MAIL SERV 7-21-12 (540)

CHERYL - REMOVED (951)

HEARING (84)

CHERYL -RETURNEi? (952)

CFiERYL - REMOVED (951)

MAGISTRATE REPORT FILED. (252)

CHERYL -RETURNED (952)

CATHY - REMOVED (9J1)

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE REPORT (674)

CHGED FRM SM CLM CAS (310)

HOLD MONEY (899)

CATHY -RETURNED (952)

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND CIVIL DOCKET (310)

*STATEMENT HAND DELIVERED TO APPELLATECOURT

CIVIL DOCKET STATEMENT (310)

NOT1CE OF APPEAL (310)

FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (310)

TRNSCRPT I-IND DEL TO APPELLATE CT (310)

CATHY - REMOVED (9951)

CATHY -RETURNED (952)

ScheduledDate

7/1912012

7/20l2012

7/24I2012

9/3U/2012

111112012

11/8/2012

11/1/2012

1 1 /1 21201 2

11l212012

1 l212013

Scheduled I/P Jud e Entry Date ContinTime 9

10:32DE01 ^ 7f1912012 ^

- DE01 ^ 7/20/2012 ^

- - DE01 0 7f24l2012 ^

^^[9(12/2012 ^

10:30 ^^ DEU1 QRD 9/19l2012 ^

==9/19I2012 ^

^Q^ 10125/2012 ^

DE01 F—] 111'f l2012 ^

111112G12

DE01 ESN . 11l5/2012 ^

- ^^ 11/30/2012. ^

15:02 PLO1 =1!2/2013 ^=

- ^^ 102013 JF-

1l212013

112/2013

1 /2f2013

12/21 /2012^^ C

1 i8/2013

1/1$i2013 i C

- IF

laaGK i ( flnt '^1v5C^

PLOI 11 - II 1!4/2013 il -

PLnL-____JL11412013 -JL

PL01 = 1/4l2013 C

DEO]= 1/^ 4t201'^ L

DE01 ^ 1f8/2013 C

^^ 1'1512013 C

/31/2013 F

ht.tr,://Clerkofcout-ts.inuniciDal:co.ciark.ott.us/Web.nsE/I;verrts?ReaclForn1&LArI'YP1: -C'..ivi 1.,. 2/25/20 1.3


CLARK COUNTY

NEAL FOLCK

Plaintiff-Appellant

V.

ROBERT REDMAN



Defendant-Appellee

DECISIC>N AND FINA JUDGMENT ENTRYMarch , 2013

PER CURIAM:

On February 21, 2013, this Court ordered Appellant, Neal Folck, to show cause why

the above-captioned appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The record sh.ovts that Fd4ck has filed a notice of appeal from the November 1, 2012

Magistrate's Decision finding Appellee, Robert Redman, entitled to judgment on F®ick's

small claims petition and December 21, 2012 Magistrate's Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law issued by the Clark County Municipal Court in case no. 12-CVI-2436.

Folck has filed objections to the November 1, 2012 Magistrate's Decision. To date, the trial

court has not ruled on the objections or entered judgment in the case.

Folck filed a response to this Court's order to show cause on February 25, 2013, in

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND r1PPELLATE DIS'['TtICT

which he concedes that the orders on appeal are not final and appealable. He has moved

the trial court to issue a final decision and appealable order, and he asks this Court for time

to resolve the matter in the municipal court without dismissing the appeal.

"Until a trial court adopts the magistrate°s decision and enters judgment, the

magistrate's decision is merely an interlocutory recommendation and is not a final,

appealable order." Carpenter v. Johnson, 196 Ohio App.3d 106, 2011-Ohio=4867, 962

N.E.2d 377, 119(2d Dist.); Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a). Moreover, insofar as objections have been

filed, there is no final appealable order until the trial court rules on those objections. Id.

Without a final appealable order, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed. This

includes granting Appellant time to resolve the matter.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), it is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Clark

County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve notice of this judgment upon all parties

and make a note in the docket of the mailing.

SO ORDERED.

MAR,E. D NOVAN, Judge

JEFF RC3ELICH, Judge

MiCH L T. HALL, Judge


Copies to:

Neal FoickAppellant6447 Harbinger LaneDayton, Ohio 45449

Robert RedmanAppellee376 E. Market StreetXenia, Ohio 45385

Hon. Thomas E. TrempeClark County Municipal Court50 E. Columbia Street, 5th FloorSpringfield, Ohio 45502

CA3/JN

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOS:BCOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE CLAIM COUNTY NMtTNICIPA,L Co1TRT

Neal C. FoIck

Plaintiff

CASE NO, 12CV102436

0D

.c.

vs

Robert Redinan

Defendant

DECISIONAND

ENrRY

This matter carne before the Small Claims Division of o-ur Cottrt

------------- -

with Plaintiff asking for $500 in damages to his boat.

A hearing was hetd November 1$t, 2012 in front of the magistrate

and Plaintiff's claim was ordered dismissed at Plaintiff's cost.

This decision was never presented to the arraigning judge for

approval.

OnNovember 2nd, 2012 Plaintiff filed an objection to the

Magistrate's decision.

Plaintiff requested findings of facts and conclusions of law.

Plaintiff aileged bias on the part of the magistrate.

On Deceznber 21, 2012, the magistrate issued his decision withfzndings of facts and conclusions of law.

Uncharacteri.sticalIy, this document aiso was not presented to the

arraiPling judge for approval.

i'lailltilT appeaIed that decision directly to the Cout o fAppeals,

who rightly found no jurisd.iction to hear the matter.

The case is back before our Court now assigned to this judge on

motion of Plaintiff for judgment consistent with the Court of Appeals

directive dated March 11, 2013.

Pursuant to Civil Rule 53 D(4)(d), this Court has made a thorough,

independent review as to Piaintiff"s objections and the anagistrate's

findings regarding the factual issues and the application of the law.

This case carne down to the credibility of witnesses and the

magistrate was in a unique position to assess thoso qualities. Nothing in

the record even hints at the siightest bias on his part in making the

factual determinat.ion.

Bottom Iine, Plaintiff's evidence fell short of the burden of proof

needed to sustain his claim. Plaintiff could not present evidence as to

what caused the damage, who caused the damage, or how rnuch damage

there was.

Based on the evidence before the Court, there can be only one

clear outcome, that is,

Judgment in favor of Defendant and against P1a°sixti.ff. Costs toPdaintiff.

Final ,A.ppealabl.e Order

^y. 5...- A- f_-0

^--^ \.^. .-.. ,^^.'^.^^t'^AB°9ia^C^:t ^--_^-H14S _._^--^-.^:== =^=---------_. --- fiSTR1CT

CLARK COUNTY'1 3 - CA i 0035

NEAL C. FOLCK6447 HARBINGER LANEDAYTON, OHIO 45449(937)-561-1064

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Vs.

ROBERT REDMAN376 EAST MARKET STREETXENIA, OHIO 45385

APPELLATE CASE NO.TRIAL CASE NO. 12-CVI-02436

APRIL 11, 2013JUDGE EUGENE S. NEVIUSMAGISTRATE ERIN E. SCANLONMAGISTRATE QUINTON I^DRESSfL

NOTICE OF APPEAL -03 F ^-s

< - ;

(937)-532-4801DEFENDANT/APPELLEE. rZ

----------------- ---°----------------------------------------------------------°----------------°-- I - -----s=`

Now comes Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Foick, pro se, and hereby gives notice that he isappealing the Clark County Municipal Court Small Claims Division decision entered by said courton the 28 th of March, 2013 to the Second District Court of Appeals.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEA copy of this Motion To Show Cause has been sent to the Defendant/Appellee at his

last known address by regular U.S. Mail on this 11t'' day of April, 2013. God speed its receipt.

CLARK CCUN'f'YCOURT OF Ai'PEALS

APR 112013


I L Q.al c . V̂ ^"

Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Foick, pro sePier 50 Rentals, Owner6447 Harbinger LaneDayton, Ohio 45449(937)-561-1064

Fii1.E^ CLERKRONALD E. Vii^1CENY,

COURT of APPEALS of OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT +y

SPRI NGFIELD, OHIO =1 J'C A - 0035

NEAL C. FOLCKPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Vs.

ROBERT REDMAN

376 EAST MARKET STREETXENIA, OHIO 45385(937)-532-4801

DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.

APPELLATE CASE NO. 13-CA-

APRIL 11, 2013

MAGISTRATE QUINTON R.DRESS6JUDGE EUGENE S. NE1fIUS

APPELLANT JUDGES

^.;.MOTION TO TRANSFER CA-qTRANSCRIPT

TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 12-C1/1-02436

----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

^

Now comes Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Foick, pro se, who requests that the MunicipalCourt of Clark County Small Claims Division Trial Court Case No. 12-CVR-02436 Transcript thatwas filed with Court of Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District Case no. 13-CA-0002 betransferred to the above captioned Court of Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District Case,Case no. 13-CA-0002 was closed on March 28, 2013 by the Court of Appeals of Ohio SecondAppellate Division for lack of jurisdiction.

A copy of this MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TRANSCRIPT has been sent to theDefendant by regular U.S. Mail at his last known address. God speed the correction of thisinjustice to the Plaintiff.

G^'P a^ pP

^$^'

\` 4^^P


Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck, pro sePier 50 Rentals, Owner4581 Jeremy Avenue

Springfield, Ohio 45502

(937)-561-1064

-n

.^,^ 11

ml_

RONALD E VINCENT CLARK COUNT^.' CLERK OF COURTSCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND COURT OF APPEALS

101 N. LIMESTONE ST'REE'I'PO BOX 1008

SPRINGFIELD, OHIO 45501(937) 521--1680

April 12, 2013

NOTICE OF THE FILING OF AN APPEAL

CASE NO: 12CV102436 (MUNICIPAL COURT) NEAL C FOLCK vs. ROBERTREDMAN

To: NEAL C FOLCK6447 HARBINGER LANEDAYTON OH 45449

Please be advised that a Notice of Appeal has been filed in the above

captioned case on: 04/11/2013.

This case will be further known under: Case No. 13CA0035 in the Court of

Appeals.

RONALD E VI.NCENT, CLERK OF COURTSCOMMON PLEAS COURT AND COURT OFAPPEALS

DEPY CLERKli

CC: ROBERT REDMAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DIVISION

CLARK COUNTI(

NEAL C. FOLCK

Plaintiff-Appellant Appellate Case No. 2013-CA-35

V.

ROBERT REDMAN

Defendant-Appellee


SHOW CAUSE ORDER(Failure to File Brief of Appellee)

-, 0,%z 3 , 2013

It appearing to the court that a brief on behalf of appeflee in response to the brief filed

on behalf of appellant, has not been filed within the time allofited under App. R. 18(A) or as

extended by order of the court, and upon due consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED, sua sponte, that appelfee shall, within fourteen (14) days of the journalization of

this show cause order, either file a brief or show cause, in writing, as to why this matter should

not be submitted to the court and considered on its merits without benefit of such brief

pursuant to App. R, 18(C).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event appellee fails to file a brief in this matter,

appellee shall not be permitted to participate in any oral argument that may be scheduled.

SO ORDERED.

ERIN E. SCANLON, Magistrate

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APFELLATE DISTRICT

Copies provided by the court to:

Neal Folck4581 Jeremy AvenueSpringfield, OH 45502

/ilp

Robert Redman376 E. Market StreetXenia, OH 45385

T'HE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLA`I'E DISTRICT


CLARK COUNTY

NEAL C. FOLCK

Plaintiff-Appellant

V.



ROBERT REDMAN

Defendant-Appellee

(Civil Appeal fromClark County Municipal Court)

FINAL ENTRY

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on the 23rd day

of August , 2013, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), it is hereby ordered that the clerk of the Clark County

Court of Appeals shall immediately serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make

a note in the docket of the mailing.

MIKE FAIN, Presiding Judge

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND f1.P P E LLt1TE DISTRICT

-2-

7 '

QONOVAN, JudgeE.

JEFFREP%"OEL.ICH, Judge

Copies mailed to:

Neal C. Folck4581 Jeremy AvenueSpringfield, OH 45502


Hon. Eugene S. NeviusClark County Municipal Court50 E. Columbia StreetSpringfield, OH 45502

THE COURTC)F APYF?ALS OF Ol-IIQSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

RONALD E VINCENT CLARK. COUNTY CLERK OF COURTSCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND COIURT OF APPEALS

101 N. LIMESTONE STREETPO BOX 1008

SPRINGFIELD, OHIO 45501(937)521-1.680

August 23, 2013

NOTICE OF THE FILING OF FINAL ENTRY

CASE NO: 13CA0035 CAPTION:NEAL C FOLCK vs. ROBERT REDMAN

To: NE.A:L C FOLCK6447 HARBINGER LANEDAYTON OH 45449

Please be advised that the Final Entry has been filed in the above

captioned case on: AUGUST 23, 2013.

Disposition as follows: THE JUDGMENT OF TI-IE TRIAL COURT ISAFFIRMED

RONALD E VINCENT, CLERK OF COURTSCOMMON PLEAS COURT AND COURT OFAPPEALS

DEP1:J Y CLERK^:

ROBERT REDMAN


CLARK COUNTY

NEAL C. FOLCK

Plaintiff-Appellant

V.

ROBERT REDMAN

Defendant-Appellee



(Civil Appeal fromClark County Municipal Court)

OPINION

Rendered on the 23rd day of August, 2013.

NEAL FOLCK, 4581 Jeremy Avenue, Springfield, Ohio 45502Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se

ROBERT REDMAN, 376 East Market Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385Defendant-Appeliee, pro se

FAIN, P.J.

{¶ 't} Plaintiff-appellant Neal C. Foick appeals from a judgment for defendant Robert

Redman. We infer from Folck's brief that he is contending that the judgment of the trial

court is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

(12) We conclude that the trial court's judgment is not against the manifest weight

of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

THE COURT OF APPEAI.S OF UHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

[. Foick Rents a Boat to Redman

{¶ 3) The magistrate made the following findings of fact:

1. On June 30, 2012 Plaintiff Neal C. Foick rented to Defendant

Robert Redman Plaintiffs 2002 Sea Ray boat. The boat was returned to

Plaintiff at the end of the day.

2. On July 1, 2012, Plaintiff advised Defendant that there were

scratches in the bow area, for which he requested compensation.

3. Plaintiff testified to his belief thatthe scratches occurred during the

use or transport [of the boat] by Defendant. Plaintiffs witness and

companion, Virginia Lynn, echoed that testimony. Plaintiff offered blurry

black and white photocopies of undated pictures purporting to show the

damage. Plaintiff did not observe, and offered no testimony from anyone

who observed, the actual infliction of any damage. Plaintiff offered no direct

evidence of any specific act or omission causing the alleged damage.

4. Defendant testified that he did not carefully inspect the boat upon

taking possession, but did look it over before returning it. He adamantly

denied causing any damage during his use or transport of the boat.

Defendant's wife also testified that she observed no fresh damage, and that

they did nothing to cause the scratches complained of by Plaintiff while they

had possession. Defendant testified and offered documents showing that

there had been a severe storm the night before the rental, suggesting that

any actual damage may have been caused thereby.

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OI-IIOSt?CC)ND APPELLATE L3ISTRlC."I'

-3-

5. Plaintiff called no witness to testify as to the diminution in value of

the boat as a result of the alleged scratches, or the reasonableness and

necessity of the repair costs he claims; Plaintiff did offer a Repair Order from

Al Williams Enterprises, dated September 25, 2012, in the amount of

$561.75, but no evidence of actual payment of any such amount.

6. Both before the June 30, 2012 rental to Defendant, and between

such rental and the September 25, 2012 Repair Order, the boat in question

had been rented to, used by, and transported by persons other than

Defendant.

7. The testimony of Defendant and Mrs. Redman is found by the

Magistrate to be credible. The testimony of Plaintiff and Ms. Lynn is found

to be lacking in credibility, and in some respects beyond the scope of their

personal knowledge.

{¶ 4) There is evidence in the record to support all of these findings except for #6;

Foick testified that he did not rent the boat to anyone between the rental to Redman and

the repair order, and there was no testimony to the contrary.

H. Course of the Proceedings

(161 Foick commenced an action against Redman in the Small Claims Division of

the Municipal Court, seeking $500 in damages. A trial was held before a magistrate. At

the trial, Folck testified and also had a witness familiar with his boat testify about the fact

that it had been damaged during the time Redman rented the boat. Redman and his wife

testified that they did not damage the boat during the rental period. The magistrate found

THE COURT OHAPPEALS OF UHIfl


-4-

the testimony of the Redmans to be more credible than the testimony of Folck and his

witness. The magistrate rendered a decision in favor of Redman. Foick filed objections

to the magistrate's decision and requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which

the magistrate issued in November 2012.

{¶ 6} Before the trial court took any action on the magistrate's decision, Folck filed

a notice of appeal from the magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We

dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order_ On March 28, 2013, the trial

court overruled Folck's objections to the magistrate's decision and rendered judgment in

favor of Redman. From this judgment, Folck appeals.

Ill. The Judgment Is Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence

(17) Foick's appellate brief fails to comply with App.R. 16(A) in several respects.

Notably, Folck does not identify an assignment of error in his brief, but complains generally

about the trial court's weighing of the evidence presented at trial. We infer Folck's

assignment of error to be as follows:

THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OFFTHE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 8} The standard set forth for manifest-wight-of-the-evidence appellate review

in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), applies also in civil

cases. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17.

In applying this standard, the appellate court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the

evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and

determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder clearly lost its way

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF C)HIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRIC:-T

-5-

and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and

a new trial ordered. The discretionary power to grant a new#rial should be exercised only

in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the judgment. State

v. Mattin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983), cited approvingly in

Thompkins at 387.

(19) The trial court found, in part:

This case came down to the credibility of witnesses and the magistrate

was in a unique position to assess those qualities. Nothing in the record

even hints at the slightest bias on his part in making the factual

determination.

Bottom line, Plaintiffs evidence fell short of the burden of proof

needed to sustain his claim. Plaintiff could not present evidence as to what

caused the damage, who caused the damage, or how much damage there

was.

(110) Foick contends that the trial court ignored Folck's testimony. The trial court

did not ignore Foick's testimony. The trial court considered Faick's testimony, but found

Redman's testimony to be more credibfe. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight

to be given to their testimony are primarily-matters for the trier of facts to resolve. State v.

DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). "Because the factfinder * * *has

the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, the cautious exercise of the discretionary

power of a court of appeals to find that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the

evidence requires that substantial deference be extended to the factfinder's determinations

of credibility. The decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular

TI-IE GOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPE LLATE DIS'[`RiCT

witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the

witness." State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 476684, *4 (Aug.

22, 1997).

{¶ 11) Based on our review of the record before us, we conclude that this is not one

of those exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against the judgment.

Martin, at 175. Therefore, the judgment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 12} Folck's inferred assignment of error is overruled.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 13} Foick's inferred assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment of

the trial court is Affirmed.

DONOVAN and FROELICH, JJ., concur.

Copies mailed to:

Neal C. FolckRobert RedmanHon. Eugene S. Nevius

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO


CLARK COUNTYCOURT OF APPEALS

COURT of APPEALS of OHIO


SPRINGaFIELf3, OHIO

NEAL C. FOLCK

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Vs.

CASE NO. 13-CA-0035

CASE NO. 12-CVi-02436

SEPTEMBER 3, 2013

SEP 3Z013

FILEDRONALD E. VINCENT, CLERK

MAGISTRATE QUINTON R. DRESSELJUDGE EUGENE S. NEVIUS

APPELLANT JUDGESROBERT REDMAN376 EAST MARKET STREET

XENIA, OHIO 45385

(937)-532-4$01

DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Now comes Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Folck, pro se, who is filing this timely MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION. The Court has ruled a final entry for this case on August 23, 2013,

whereby the trial Court opinion is affirmed. Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel had decisions of

November 1, 2012 and December 21, 2012. Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel ruled that

Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff's claim, and the same will be dismissed at

Plaintiffs cost, Uncharacteristically, both Magistrate decisions were not endorsed by an

arraigning Judge for approval. Also, Judge Thomas E. Trempe was carbon copied on the ShowCause Order and returned the case to the clerk of court without an answer. Why did Judge

Thomas E. Trempe avoid ruling on Case no. 12-CVI-02436 and allow so many days to transpire,

before a Judge's Decision and Entry was finally issued at the request thru a Motion to do so by

the Plaintiff?

Pursuant to Civil Rule 53 D(4)9d), the Small Claims Division of the Clark County

Municipa! Court made a thorough, independent review of Plaintiff's objections and theMagistrate's findings regarding the factual issues and application of ttie law. A judgment (threemonths after the latest Magistrate's decision) in favor of the Defendant, Robert Redman andagainst Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck, with costs to the Plaintiff was filed on March 28, 2013.

Judge Eugene S. Nevius ruled that the case came down to the credibility of witnesses

and the Magistrate was in a unique position to assess those qualities. Nothing in the record

even hints at the slightest bias on the Magistrate's part in making the factual determination.

Also, Judge Eugene S. Nevius ruled that the bottom line, Plaintiff's evidence fell short of the

burden of proof needed to sustain his claim. Plaintiff could not present evidence as to what

caused the damage, who caused the damage, or how much damage there was.

Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and Judge Eugene S. Nevius were clearly pro Defendant intheir decisions. We Clark County Residents (see attached property owner record and picture ofthe boat storage location, with the bow of the boat away from any trees or other obstructionsas the Defendant alleges), small business owners, and tax payers are not operating a charity for

Greene County Resident Defendant, Robert Redman.

As described above, this was a Clark County Municipal Court Small Claims Division Case

where the rules of procedure are relaxed, no cross-examination of the witnesses and less detail

is required for the "BURDEN of PROOF". What unique position was the Magistrate Quinton R.

Dressell in to assess the quality of the witnesses' testimony? The Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C.

Folck can prove thru the subsequent filing of this Court of Appeals Second Appellate District

Case no. 13-CA-0035 that his evidence presented DID NOT fall short of his burden of proof, but

instead a judgment must be granted against the Defendant/Appellee, Rober Rednian.

The Plaintiff/Appellant, Neal C. Foickis hereby entering thi MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION for the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District. The facts were

presented in the Appeals Court and the Clark County Municipal Court and were overlooked by

the Magistrate and the Judges. in recent prior Cases no. 11-CV102371 Folck vs. Harvey and Case

no. 11-CV1002372 Folck vs. Coleman involving damages during Sea Ray Boat rentals by the

Plaintiff to Defendants, Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and Judge Denise Moody found that the

Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick was entitled to judgments plus costs. These Court Cases were presented

exactly as Case no. 12-CVl02436 in favor of the Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck. Moreover, in Case no.

11-CV104004 in Foick vs. Khanzada Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and Judge Denise Moody had

their verdicts overturned in favor of Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick in Appeals Court Case no. 12-CA0018

regarding similar damages of Plaintiff's boat by the Defendant. Additionally, Case no. 11-

CV104004 would not be transferred to the Clark County Court of Common Pleas by Magistrate

Quintori R. Dressel for a fair hearing.

In the Case no. 07-CVI-01724 of Virginia Lynn vs.loseph Saporito a judgment was

rendered by Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and Judge Albert Stewart in favor of the Plaintiff in

the Small Claims Division of the Clark County Municipal Court. Similar circumstances occurred

where the Defendant damaged the Plaintiff's rental vehicle and the damages were described

with a written estimate and the exact cause of the damages were never determined (except

that no damages existed prior to the rental period, just like the instant Case no. 12-CVI-02436).

A preponderance of evidence has been presented by the Plaintiff that scratches anddeep pits requiring new gel coat (damages to the hull of Plaintiff's Sea Ray Boat) were causedby an act and an omission of Defendant (he failed to protect Plaintiff's boat hull from damagesduring usage). The monetary amount of damages and costs to repair were reasonable andattributable to Defendant's acts and omissions (see Exhibits from two repair shops). Plaintiffdid certainly sustain his burden of proof with evidence and witness testimony of facts. TheMagistrate, without a Judge's endorsement, found Defendant Redman (with his anxious wife asa witness) testimonies to be credible. However, the Municipal Court Transcript will show howthe trifling Defendant and his witness' unsubstantiated, contradictory, weak, confusing,

disrespectful (Defendant and his witness interrupted the Magistrate several times and calledthe Plaintiff a liar), desperate, and lacking solid evidence. Moreover, the Defendant stated thatthe Plaintiff's residence was owned by a friend of the Plaintiff. This mature, upscale, and ruralneighborhood of one acre plus lots, without sidewalks, has been owned by the Plaintiff sinceDecember, 2006 and there are no children with BB guns that have been visible during that time.The Plaintiff lives alone and the neighbors have no children. See attached property ownerrecord and Exhibits that show trees, but none near the front bow of the Sea Ray Boat stored onthe left side of the garage with no firewood anywhere near the boat as the Defendant testified(see transcript).

The damages to the hull of the Plaintiff's 2002 Sea Ray Boat may appear to beinsignificant and cosmetic to the unfamiliar Magistrate and Defendant renter. With the Plaintiffand his witness' boat ownership and boating experience being greater than ten (10) years each,it is a fact that breaking thru the gel coat of a fiberglass boat hull will eventually cause greaterdamages, due to being exposed to water and subsequent fiberglass de-famination, bubbling ofsurrounding gel coat, and ultimately a leak of water into the boat. Therefore, the damagescaused by the Defendant boat user must be timely repaired as per the contracted agreernentbetween the Plaintiff and Defendant (who used the Plaintiff's boat under the described andfamiliar terms to the Defendant) to prevent further hull damages. The Plaintiff and his witnesschallenge the Appeal Court's opinion of their lack of knowledge of boats and their usage!

Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel asked the Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck in Court how many times

that repairs had been made to the gel coat of his fiberglass 2002 Sea Ray Boat and the Plaintiff,

Neal C. Foick answered three (3) times previously (see transcript page 18 lines 13-20). The

number of repairs to the fiberglass gel coat over the past ten (10) years of ownership by the

Plaintiff, who is the original owner, has no bearing on the instant case. What does have

considerable weight is the evidence presented by Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck that the hull of the

2002 Sea Ray Boat was in perfect condition (witness testimony and Court Exhibit of recent hull

repair order dated June 20, 2012) and that the boat had not been used prior to (since hull

repairs were made in the area damaged by Defendant) or after the Defendant's rental (see

transcript). Clearly, Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel is biased against the Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck.

Magistrate Quinton R. Dressel and Judge Eugene S. Nevius overlooked evidence and previous

testimony and Exhibits included in the transcript of the Municipal Court in favor of the Plaintiff.

(See transcript page 6 lines 4-7, page 13 lines 14 - 25, and page 18 lines 4-19. Also, see above

described, unendorsed by a Judge, Magistrate Decisions and Court Cases no, 11CVI04004 and12CA0018).

Plaintiff, Neal C. Foick stated that Defendant, Robert Redman rented Plaintiff, Neal C.

Folck's 2002 Sea Ray 200 Bow Rider Boat on June 30, 2012 for $175.00, (See transcript pages 3-

4 lines 1-18 and pages 3-4 lines 21-26). Defendant, Robert Redman damaged the boat while

renting it and returned the boat without making any attempt to compensate the Plaintiff, Neal

C. Foick for the damages that he caused during the contracted rental period on June 30; 2012.

After repeated attempts (letter to Defendant was presented as Court Exhibits from both

Plaintiff and Defendant) to collect the monies owed from Defendant, Robert Redman. It

became necessary to seek the following past due monies owed via the Clark County MunicipalCourt and now the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District:

$561.75 Repair damaged boat huEl (see attached repair order-page 4)

75.00 Transportation of boat to repair shop and return$636.75 Total

$315.25 Court fees (includes $52.25 transcript cost-receipt attached)

The following facts were presented and cleariy ignored by the Magistrate and the Courtof Appeals during their presentation of their conclusions:

1. Plaintiff and his witness testified that his boats were previously rented to Defendant

under agreed contracts (same contract language and terms as in the present CourtCase, except different rental rates). (See transcript page 4 lines 15-17).

2. Defendant testified that he transported Plaintiff.s boat and trailer from Plaintiff'sboat storage at 4581 Jeremy Avenue, Springfield, Ohio 45502, added fuel, used theboat and trailer at C.J. Brown Reservoir in Clark County, Ohio, did not load the boatcorrectly on the trailer, transported the boat and trailer back to the Plaintiff'sstorage location previously described, removed trash bag, left $175.00 cash in anenvelope in the boat, and left the Plaintiff's property without incident. (Seetranscript page 8 lines 2-4, page 9 lines 1-12, page 9 lines 19-24, and page 13 lines 1-8).

3. Plaintiff testified that Defendant was late to arrive for his boat rental appointment

on June 30, 2012 and Defendant returned the boat unannounced without pre or

post inspections in the Plaintiff's presence. Plaintiff testified that a post rental

inspection within a few hours after the boat was returned revealed hull damage to

the boat's fiberglass in the black band of the boat's bow area. Phone calls were

made that evening and the next day by the Plaintiff to the Defendant informing the

Defendant of the damages to the 2002 Sea Ray Boat rented by the Defendant. Also,

the Defendant presented the letter sent to him by the Plaintiff as a Court Exhibit

that described the hull damages and a request for payrnent of repair costs, The

Defendant refused to show remorse, denied damages, refused to return to the

storage location and inspect the boat damages, and said "You will have to take me

to Court to collect"! (See transcript page 3 lines 21-26, page 4 lines 1-15, page 7

line26, page 12 lines 5-21, page 13 lines 14-26, and pages 14-16).

4. Defendant testified that he docked the boat at the C.J. Brown Reservoir Marina, hesaw a child with a BB gun in the neighborhood where the boat is stored, received acall from Judge Mathis, the boat was parked near trees, there was firewood pilednear the boat, he was six feet tall and saw no boat hull damage, the boat was dirtyinside, he cleaned and removed trash from the boat, the boating equipment wasreturned to storage, the rental price was too high, he wanted to rent the 29'

pontoon boat, but it had been sold, a wind and rain storm had been present a day

earlier (Court Exhibit presented) and the weather delayed his arrival, there was

debris floating in the lake from the storm, he had a CDL License for thirty four (34)

years, he sarcastically laughed and commented about other boat renter's damages

to Plaintiff's boats, and he did not observe the boat improperly loaded and secured

to the trailer. (See page 10 lines 2-4, page 9 lines 7-13, page 10 lines 6-12, pages 7-13 lines 16-18, and page 18 lines 2-3).

First, if the Defendant had not been so busy complaining about the discounted boatrental and had paid more attention, there would not have been any boat damages orneed for a Court case. (See page 4 lines 5-11).

Second, the Defendant was negligent in the fact that he used Plaintiff's fiberglass

boat at C. J. Brown Reservoir where the metal dock cleats at the Marina and other dock

areas are very close to the hulls of the boats for convenient use by boat operators, but

easily damage the boat hulls, if not properly protected by boat bumpers (fenders) andcorrect tethering of the boat away from the dock cleats by the boat operators. Also, theDefendant mentioned that it had rained the days before and during the rental day.

Debris filled, rough, choppy, and windy the lake was from the storm earlier in the week

and during the rental day (Defendant provided an Exhibit about the cancellation of

1-ATao). It would be very easy for the boat operator to hit the docks uncontrollablywhile docking and loading the boat to the trailer at the boat ramps. (See page 141ines1-16 and page 7 lines 13-22).

Third, the Defendant professes to be an experienced CDL Licensed Driver, but

transported a 22' and 4,000 pound boat on an open trailer that had the boat unsecured

and bouncing on the trailer as it traveled on public highways from the C.J. Brown

Reservoir to the Plaintiff's residence at 4581 Jeremy Avenue. (See page 11 lines 11-13,page 12 lines 25-26, and page 13 lines 1-8).

Fourth, Defendant and his witness offered several ways that the soft fiberglass

rental boat's hull could have been damaged. They testified that they did not darriage

the Plaintiff's boat. (See page 12 lines 15-21 and page 11 lines 24-25).

Fifth, while it may never be established by what method the boat was darnaged by

the Defendant. It was clearly established by the Plaintiff and his witness that the

Defendant contracted a boat rental. Defendant used the boat at turbuient C.J. Brawn

Reservoir after recent storms. Defendant returned the boat with hull damage asdescribed in Court. (See transcript).

Sixth, the Defendant willingly and without duress contracted and used the Plaintiff'sboat at C. J. Brown Reservoir with existing conditions and contract terms on June 30,

2012 for an agreed negotiated price of $175.00 (price is well below competitor's and

original rate of $250.00) with no security deposit (see Exhibit A). Plaintiff inspected the

boat on the morning of the rental, placed rental contract in the boat, and subsequently

left for work due to Defendant's tardiness. No cancellation fees, cleaning fees, or other

fees were applicableto the boat rental contract. (See Exhibit A, pages 3-4, and pagel6lines 1-9).

Lastly, the Defendant's and witness' testimonies were weak and vague. Theirobservations (or lack of observation and attention to details) caused damage to thePlaintiff's rental boat and Defendant must be held accountable for his actions andagreed contracted boat rental terms, (See transcript where there are severalcontradicting and non-relevant testimonies by the desperate Defendant and hiswitness).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck requests reconsideration of the facts and a grant of his

complaint of $636.75 plus Court costs from the Defendant, Robert Redman. Plaintiff,

Neal C. Folck prays for a judgrnent and fees against Defendant, Robert Redman of this

complaint. Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck also prays for an objective review of the facts and

relief from the Court for the irresponsible and careless acts of Defendant, Robert

Redman that have transpired since, June 30, 2012.

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

A copy of this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION has been sent to the Defendant byregular U.S. Mail at his last known address. God speed the correction of this injustice tothe Plaintiff.


rt^ c , 4za"Plaintiff, Neal C. Folck, pro sePier 50 Rentals, Owner4581 Jeremy Avenue

Springfield, Ohio 45502(937)-434-0673

(_'larle County, Ohio: Oi11ine Auditor - Map

Map

Percel Z.enes Base InPr. City

^ Parcei Dimertsions

^ F'arcel Acreage

Lot Numbers

^ q Block Numhers

Addresses

Land Use

q Survey Search

q Benchmarks

C GF'S Points

parce! shepefile /asl updated 8/30/2023I1:44; 0$

7A datatiase la5t updated 9/J/1013 5.:44:19p+t.. j

Selectio^

Page 1 of I

°a{.,•,^Î .0

zoom Ta 310 3nOCat 10cv7a ^ FrJLEY rJE{ C c G c Q'•n!0oP! DR

ZuomTa. hSPl•[,a0tt0onc^f;..,. . . .,^.. ^,. . ... . .. ...... _.. . .. . _ .. .... .. . . .. . .

.Ì.r+r c [ UARI. E . . .1870 tFERpZcorn T. 100i iG0011301C, cU 213 ; RD.. . . . ..^.. ... ...._ . . . . . ._./oo- to ...__011CGG!100 4 FO rk..F F H I., T.:F _. _ _ . _ . .. . . ._. . .......^.. .... .. . .

m7o ^ . . . . .. . .. ... . ^ . .. . . RtGFEL ,.^

-- ----- ---- - ------ - - - - -- -------- ----- -------

o U^. .^Â

(^PAf S•7ÒItEv^ jt J T^ n. i t.- C/L

littp:1/gis.clailccouzttyauditor.org/:'VIap..aspx?Loact=Strizig&.Todo=Find&ScarchStrizig=1 g()11... 9/3/2-013

i t

NEAL C. FOLCK

Plaintiff-Appellant

V.

ROSERT REDMAN

Defencfant-Appellee



(Civil Appeal fromClark County Mu ^' K COUNTY

^ OF APPEALS

SEP 262013

F6LEDRONALD E. ViRECENT,

DECISION AND ENTRY

Rendered on the 26th day of September, 2013

PER CURIAM:


CLARK COUNTY

This matter is before the court upon the motion of plaintiff-appellant Neal C. Folck for

reconsideration of our judgment rendered herein on August 23, 2013. Folck's motion neither

calls our attention to an obvious error in our decision, nor raises an issue for consideration

that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should

have been, the test for reconsideration of an appellate judgment. City of Columbus v. Hodge,

37 Ohio App.3d 68, 69, 423 N.e.2d 515 (10th Dist.1987).

Foick again argues that the judgment against him on his complaint for damages to his

boat is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Giving proper deference to the trial court,

which, in the person of the magistrate, had an opportunity to see and hear the conflicting


-2-

testimony of the witnesses, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court is not against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, Folck's motion for reconsideration is

OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

r

LMIKE FAIN, Presiding Judge

E. DOtNOVAN, Judge

J ' vi/.

JEFF R((Oy/^ELICH, Judge

"THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

Copies mailed to:

Neal C. Folck4581 Jeremy AvenueSpringfield, OH 45502


Hon. Eugene S. NeviusClark County Municipal Court50 E. Columbia StreetSpringfield, OH 45502

:df

columbus, ohio 43215-3431 65 south front street, 8^h' … magistrate quinton r, dressel ruled...

Documents