Ninth District Decisions for August 26, 2013

Sherrill v. Knight, 2013-Ohio-3665 is a decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from an order of the Summit County Domestic Relatons Court modifying a shared parenting arrangement. The Court found that the DR Court order was not a final appealable order and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 

State v. Herzberger, 2013-Ohio-3664 affirmed a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court classifying him as a sexual predator instead of a sexually oriented offender under the law that existed when Herzberger raped his daughters. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court had complied with the classification statute that then existed and that there was competent and credible evidence supporting the classification. 

Cashland Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Hoyt, 2013-Ohio-3663 affirmed a decision from the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas granting judgment to the plaintiff against Ms. Hoyt. Ms. Hoyt appealed citing three assignments of error.  

Hoyt claimed that the trial court erred in disallowing her counterclaim. The first assignment of error was on Hoyt's claim that Cashland had charged her an interest rate that was twice that called for in the contract. The Court of Appeals noted that when a defendant brings a counterclaim for breach of contract the defendant must show three things. 

The first is that the contract existed. The second is that the defendant fulfilled his or her duties under the contract. The third is that the plaintiff did not perform. In this case the appellate court found that since Hoyt did not claim that she had performed the contract, she couldn't maintain her counterclaim and that the motion for judgment on the pleadings had been correctly upheld. 

The second assignment of error was that the trial court erred in rewarding check cashing fees to Cashland in excess of those allowed by R.C. 1315.40(B), and by the contract. The appellate court found that since Cashland only charged the insufficient funds fee that it had been charged by the bank that held Hoyt's checking account. Since Cashland only charged what it itself had been charged, there was no violation of either the statute or the contract. 

The third assignment of error was that Cashland had charged a rate of interest not allowed by Ohio's laws on pay day lenders. The Court of Appeals held that since the complaint was dismissed, and Hoyt had not repaid the loan, there was no evidence that Hoyt had been charged anything by Cashland and therefore her cause of action for violation of Ohio's pay day lending statute was premature.