Helfrich v. Patrick ( 2024 )

[Cite as Helfrich v. Patrick, 2024-Ohio-2097.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAMES HELFRICH : JUDGES:
: Hon. Andrew J. King, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
JACOB PATRICK : Case No. 23CA0076
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court,
Case No. 23CVE01272
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 31, 2024
2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JAMES HELFRICH, PRO SE JACOB PATRICK
P.O. Box 921 96 Broadway Street
Pataskala, OH 43062 Pataskala, OH 43062
Licking County, Case No. 23CA0076 2
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, James Helfrich, appeals the October 23, 2023 judgment
entry of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio, awarding him damages after a
default judgment. Defendant-Appellee is Jacob Patrick. We reverse the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On December 24, 2020, Helfrich received damage to his property caused
by the actions of Patrick.
{¶ 3} On June 5, 2023, Helfrich filed in the municipal court a pro se complaint
against Patrick, listing four causes of action: 1) claim for damage to property; 2) claim for
civil trespass; 3) claim for punitive damages; and 4) claim for actual damages. Helfrich
sought actual damages in the amount of $2,300, punitive damages in the amount of
$2,000, all court costs, and any attorney fees if applicable. In both the title of his complaint
and the last line of his complaint, Helfrich demanded a jury.
{¶ 4} On August 10, 2023, Helfrich filed a motion for default judgment due to
Patrick's failure to file an answer or otherwise appear. By judgment entry filed August 29,
2023, the trial court granted the motion, and set a damages hearing for September 18,
2023.
{¶ 5} At the start of the damages hearing, Helfrich reminded the trial court that he
had demanded a jury. The trial court denied his request and heard the matter.
{¶ 6} At 9:38 a.m. on October 23, 2023, Helfrich filed a pleading titled, "Plaintiff
Reaffirming he is Entitled to a Jury Trial." Helfrich noted the trial court had yet to award
anything and "[u]nless this court awards everything in Helfrich's complaint he is entitled
to a jury trial." At 12:50 p.m. on the same date, the trial court filed a judgment entry
Licking County, Case No. 23CA0076 3
awarding Helfrich $1,865.54 in actual damages plus interest and court costs. The trial
court denied Helfrich's request for punitive damages.
{¶ 7} Helfrich filed an appeal with the following assignments of error:
I
{¶ 8} "DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT DENIED A JURY"
II
{¶ 9} "DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT GRANTED A MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THEN DENIED A JURY TO HEAR AND CONSIDER
DAMAGES"
III
{¶ 10} "DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT GRANTED A MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THEN NOT GRANT THE DAMAGES REQUESTED"
IV
{¶ 11} "DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN THE JUDGE AWARDED LESS
THAN THE ACTUAL DAMAGES DEMONSTRATED"
V
{¶ 12} "DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO SWEAR ANYONE IN
DURING THE COST HEARING"
VI
{¶ 13} "IS THIS COURT OR THE TRIAL COURT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
OF THE GOVERNMENT"
VII
Licking County, Case No. 23CA0076 4
{¶ 14} "DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT DID NOT AWARD DAMAGES
WHEN NO ONE TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY"
VIII
{¶ 15} "WILL THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN THIS COURT ORDERS THIS
CASE BE SENT BACK WITH A JURY IF THE TRIAL COURT REPRESENTS THE
DEFENDANT IN THE NEXT COST HEARING"
I, II
{¶ 16} In his first two assignments of error, Helfrich claims the trial court erred in
denying him a jury trial on his damages claim. We agree.
{¶ 17} Under Article 1, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution, Helfrich is entitled to a
jury trial if he complies with the procedural rules and takes affirmative action. In this case,
Helfrich took affirmative action and complied with Civ.R. 38; he demanded a jury trial in
his complaint and again reasserted that demand at the start of the damages hearing and
never abandoned his demand. Even though the trial court granted default judgment to
Helfrich, he was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of damages. See Sharp v. M3C
Investments LLC, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110442, 2022-Ohio-1394; Berube v.
Richardson, 2017-Ohio-1367, 89 N.E.3d 85 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 18} Upon review, we find the trial court erred in denying Helfrich's demand for
a jury trial on damages.
{¶ 19} Assignments of Error I and II are granted. Assignments of Error III-VII are
moot. Assignment of Error VIII is not a reviewable assignment of error.
Licking County, Case No. 23CA0076 5
{¶ 20} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio is hereby
reversed, and the matter is remanded to the court for further proceedings.
By King, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.