On July 11, 2014 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Carter, James,
and
Johnson, Kaye,
for MONEY COMPLAINT
in the District Court of Wayne County.
Preview
Filed on 06/19/2015 at 03:47 PM in Wayne County, Ohio
WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
ORRVILLE BRANCH
JAMES P. CARTER Case No 2014-CV-F 001171
Plaintiff
vs
MAGISTRATES' PROPOSED
KAYE J. JOHNSON DECISION
Defendant
Now comes the plaintiff in this matter and objects to the proposed decision of the magistrate.
I was not given notice of the hearing date. This had previously happened by an oversight of the court.
This case was filed in the Orrville Branch. My hearings, exception being show causes, and trials
including small claims hearing and mediation, have always been held in the Orrville Branch. 1 have
never had a trial or hearing, except show cause, on a Thursday, in the Wooster Branch.
What the magistrate has indicates in his proposed decision, is hearsay evidence with regards to the
employee of the plaintiff. There is no testimony having been given by the employee of the plaintiff. At
the hearing, the employee would have been called by the plaintiff to testify to refute the allegations of
the defendant. There is no evidence that the defendant was told by the employee, that a tenant had been
found to relieve her of the obligation of the remainder of the rental agreement. In fact, there had not
been one found. Defendant was under a one year rental agreement. The agreement would have
required her to either remain in the unit until a new tenant was found, continue to pay the rent, maintain
utilities. Also there would have been a charge for a short term rental had the defendant been released
from her obligations of the rental agreement. The fact the defendant indicated that she had to move,
because of WMHA, is an outright fabrication. The apartment in which she resided in was and is
approved by WMHA and she had the option of remaining there until the term of the lease.
The defendants did not provide the court with evidence that she had paid rent during her term of
residency, nor that a security deposit was in fact paid, nor paid the rent for the month she vacated.
This information was requested by the plaintiff in his discovery.
There was no evidence that a forwarding address was given to the plaintiff in this matter., as required
by law, There is no evidence presented to the court that she sent any correspondence to the plaintiff.
The defendant failed to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery. Plaintiff filed his request for discovery
with the court, This discovery would support the plaintiffs‘ complaint and would not support the
defendants’ counterclaim.
A default was entered against the plaintiff and then vacated because of an error., When the default was,
plaintiff was led to understand and believe that the matter was adjudicated. The court record indicates
that the bench trial was canceled. In addition the defendants’ counse) immediately sent the plaintiff a
demand for payment on the counterclaim and the default.
Notice to vacate does not terminate the terms of a rental agreement which was till in effect, unless
agreed to by both parties. In addition there is not evidence that supports that the defendant was released
a/b d sv0vege2oss << 2S779EE0EE sayeg syiods |-¥ 87'20 61-90-SL02Filed on 06/19/2015 at 03:47 PM in Wayne County, Ohio
from the rental agreement.
The proposed decision fails to take into effect the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs’ rental
agreement and the defendants failure to comply, regarding notice to vacate and items regarding the
return of possession, forwarding address and damages. Everything reportedly presented at the hearing
represents unsubstantiated testimony by the defendant.
In more than forty years, the court has ever awarded me attorney fees in such matters. Nor have they
awarded damages in double the amount of the security deposit to the defendant. The defendant did not
support her claim, by a check or receipt that she had paid a security deposit, that she paid the last
months rent, thus negating her claim for double the amount and/or attorneys’ fees.
There is no filing by the defendant or her counsel for the plaintiffs' request for discovery. Specifically
with either the court or the plaintiff. Such discovery would and will provide the plaintiff with
information and documentation that supports his claims and would deny her counterclaim,
This case should be tried on the merits, both the complaint and the counterclaim. Defendant should be
required to support her counter claim by proof of payment. Defendant should be required by the court
to file the discovery requested by the plaintiff. The matter should be based on its merits.
Plaintiff moves the court to reject the proposed decision of the magistrate and that this matter be set for
a trail as the court would direct.
Respect submitted:
ole
es Carter
2/2 d £90E920EE << 2@S979SE0EE sayeg syJods |-¥ 67°20 61-90-SLOe
Document Filed Date
June 19, 2015
Case Filing Date
July 11, 2014
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filed on 06/19/2015 at 03:47 PM in Wayne County, Ohio WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT ORRVILLE BRANCH JAMES P. CARTER Case No 2014-CV-F 001171 Plaintiff vs MAGISTRATES' PROPOSED KAYE J. JOHNSON DECISION Defendant Now comes the plaintiff in this matter and objects to the proposed decision of the magistrate. I was not given notice of the hearing date. This had previously happened by an oversight of the court. This case was filed in the Orrville Branch. My hearings, exception being show causes, and trials including small claims hearing and mediation, have always been held in the Orrville Branch. 1 have never had a trial or hearing, except show cause, on a Thursday, in the Wooster Branch. What the magistrate has indicates in his proposed decision, is hearsay evidence with regards to the employee of the plaintiff. There is no testimony having been given by the employee of the plaintiff. At the hearing, the employee would have been called by the plaintiff to testify to refute the allegations of the defendant. There is no evidence that the defendant was told by the employee, that a tenant had been found to relieve her of the obligation of the remainder of the rental agreement. In fact, there had not been one found. Defendant was under a one year rental agreement. The agreement would have required her to either remain in the unit until a new tenant was found, continue to pay the rent, maintain utilities. Also there would have been a charge for a short term rental had the defendant been released from her obligations of the rental agreement. The fact the defendant indicated that she had to move, because of WMHA, is an outright fabrication. The apartment in which she resided in was and is approved by WMHA and she had the option of remaining there until the term of the lease. The defendants did not provide the court with evidence that she had paid rent during her term of residency, nor that a security deposit was in fact paid, nor paid the rent for the month she vacated. This information was requested by the plaintiff in his discovery. There was no evidence that a forwarding address was given to the plaintiff in this matter., as required by law, There is no evidence presented to the court that she sent any correspondence to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery. Plaintiff filed his request for discovery with the court, This discovery would support the plaintiffs‘ complaint and would not support the defendants’ counterclaim. A default was entered against the plaintiff and then vacated because of an error., When the default was, plaintiff was led to understand and believe that the matter was adjudicated. The court record indicates that the bench trial was canceled. In addition the defendants’ counse) immediately sent the plaintiff a demand for payment on the counterclaim and the default. Notice to vacate does not terminate the terms of a rental agreement which was till in effect, unless agreed to by both parties. In addition there is not evidence that supports that the defendant was released a/b d sv0vege2oss << 2S779EE0EE sayeg syiods |-¥ 87'20 61-90-SL02Filed on 06/19/2015 at 03:47 PM in Wayne County, Ohio from the rental agreement. The proposed decision fails to take into effect the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs’ rental agreement and the defendants failure to comply, regarding notice to vacate and items regarding the return of possession, forwarding address and damages. Everything reportedly presented at the hearing represents unsubstantiated testimony by the defendant. In more than forty years, the court has ever awarded me attorney fees in such matters. Nor have they awarded damages in double the amount of the security deposit to the defendant. The defendant did not support her claim, by a check or receipt that she had paid a security deposit, that she paid the last months rent, thus negating her claim for double the amount and/or attorneys’ fees. There is no filing by the defendant or her counsel for the plaintiffs' request for discovery. Specifically with either the court or the plaintiff. Such discovery would and will provide the plaintiff with information and documentation that supports his claims and would deny her counterclaim, This case should be tried on the merits, both the complaint and the counterclaim. Defendant should be required to support her counter claim by proof of payment. Defendant should be required by the court to file the discovery requested by the plaintiff. The matter should be based on its merits. Plaintiff moves the court to reject the proposed decision of the magistrate and that this matter be set for a trail as the court would direct. Respect submitted: ole es Carter 2/2 d £90E920EE << 2@S979SE0EE sayeg syJods |-¥ 67°20 61-90-SLOe