Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Evans v. Davis

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1050
• Docket Number: 115433

• Judges: Keough

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.6K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Magistrate's decision; objections; transcript; Civ.R. 53. - Decision affirmed where this court lacked any ability to review appellant's assignments of error because she did not provide a transcript or affidavit of the evidence, requiring this court to accept the trial court's factual findings. Moreover, newly raised arguments not raised below are disregarded under Civ.R. 53.

Combined Opinion

                        by [Kathleen Ann Keough](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8108/kathleen-ann-keough/)

[Cite as Evans v. Davis, 2026-Ohio-1050.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

LACRECIA EVANS, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 115433
v. :

BARBARA ANN DAVIS, :

Defendant-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 26, 2026

Civil Appeal from the Euclid Municipal Court
Case No. 25CVI01718

Appearances:

Lacrecia Evans, pro se.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

Plaintiff-appellant Lacrecia Evans appeals the trial court’s judgment

affirming and adopting the magistrate’s decision that entered judgment in favor of

defendant-appellee Barbara Ann Davis on Evans’s small-claims complaint

concerning the replacement of a fence along the parties’ property line. Finding no

merit to the appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In May 2025, Evans, pro se, filed a small-claims complaint against

Davis, seeking monetary damages. The complaint consisted of a single sentence,

alleging that Davis replaced a portion of Evans’s fencing without her knowledge

and consent. The matter was referred to a magistrate who conducted a trial and

received testimony and evidence from both Evans and Davis. The admitted trial

exhibits were submitted to this court in the certified record.

Following trial, the magistrate issued a decision, recommending

judgment in favor of Davis. The magistrate determined that based on the

testimony, Evans’s complaint asserted claims for trespass and interference of

property rights. The magistrate concluded, however, that based on the evidence

and testimony, Evans failed to withstand her burden of proving these claims.

Rather, the magistrate found that the fencing that Davis removed was located on

her own property; she did not disturb any fencing located on Evans’s property.

Evans timely filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision,

disagreeing with the magistrate’s factual finding that Davis did not remove any of

Evans’s fencing. Evans attached additional documents to her objections that were

not admitted into evidence before the magistrate.

On July 28, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry overruling

Evans’s objection and adopting the magistrate’s decision. The court noted that

Evans’s objections contested the magistrate’s factual findings but found that Evans

failed to file a transcript or affidavit of evidence in compliance with

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), which would allow her to properly challenge the
magistrate’s findings. Additionally, the court noted that the documents attached

to her objections were not presented at trial, and thus not proper for consideration.

After the court conducted its independent review of the record, it concluded that

the magistrate properly determined the factual and legal issues. Accordingly, the

trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and entered judgment in favor of

Davis.

Evans now appeals, raising the following three assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in failing to recognize the unlawful removal of
   the entire fence and boundary fencing constituting a violation of
   property rights and invasion of privacy.

2. The trial court erred in denying damages for the cost of reinstalling
   the fence and cleanup despite clear evidence of property interference.

3. The trial court failed to consider the repeated acts of harassment,
   intimidation, and emotional distress caused by the appellee.

Evans contends that the trial court’s decision is contrary to law

because R.C. 5301.01 and 2307.60 provide actionable relief for trespass, property

damage, invasion of privacy, and harassment.1 Accordingly, she maintains that

Davis’s conduct created a pattern of intimidation and emotional distress, and thus

the trial court should have awarded her damages for Davis’s removal of the fence.

Civ.R. 53 governs proceedings before a magistrate and the trial

court’s duties in accepting or rejecting a magistrate’s rulings. When a party files

1 R.C. 5301.01 governs the signatures and acknowledgements required for deeds,

mortgages, land contracts, leases, or memoranda of trust. R.C. 2307.60 governs civil
actions for damages for criminal acts, including tort actions.
objections with the trial judge on a magistrate’s decision, those objections are to

be specific and state with particularity the grounds of objection.

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii). Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), except for a claim of

plain error, a party that fails to object to the magistrate’s decision may not assign

as error on appeal the trial court’s adoption of any of the magistrate’s factual

findings or legal conclusions.

In this case, Evans’s only objection to the magistrate’s decision was

that Davis “removed [three-quarters] of her fence around her property without

permission.” Evans did not raise any challenge to the magistrate’s decision

regarding the applicability of R.C. 5301.01 or 2307.60, nor has she alleged plain

error on appeal. Accordingly, Evans failed to comply with Civ.R. 53 by not

objecting with specificity and by advancing arguments not raised below.

Additionally, our review of the trial court’s decision is limited

because Evans did not file a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing or an affidavit

regarding the evidence upon which she based her objections. When a matter is

tried to a court magistrate, Civ.R. 53 requires that “[a]n objection to a factual

finding, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact under

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence

submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence

if a transcript is not available.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). In the absence of a

transcript or a properly filed affidavit of the evidence in support of a party’s

objections, a trial court is “required to accept the magistrate’s findings of fact and
examine only the legal conclusions based on those facts.” Galewood v. Terry

Lumber & Supply Co., 2002-Ohio-947, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Duncan

v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 1995-Ohio-272, ¶ 10. Appellate court review in such

instances is likewise limited to whether the trial court’s application of the law to

the factual findings was an abuse of discretion. Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co.,

L.P.A. v. Signer, 2009-Ohio-968, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Duncan at id.

Evans’s assignments of error either challenge factual findings, i.e.,

whether Davis removed fencing located on Evans’s property, or advance issues not

objected to or raised in the trial court, i.e., whether Davis’s conduct amounted to

actionable conduct under Ohio law. On this record, we lack any ability to review

Evans’s assignments of error because she did not provide a transcript or affidavit

of the evidence, and thus we are required to accept the court’s factual findings.

Moreover, Evans raises arguments not raised below; thus under Civ.R. 53, the

newly raised arguments are disregarded. Evans’s assignments of error are

overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellant pay the 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

Euclid 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.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR