Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rasner v. Ser-Mu Corp.
Citation: 2011 Ohio 5847Docket: 96467
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; November 9, 2011; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Olga Rasner appealed a judgment from the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court favoring Ser-Mu Corp, doing business as Sharp Care Auto, regarding her claims of breach of contract and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The trial, held in October 2010, resulted in a ruling for Sharp Care, which Rasner contended was erroneous in her appeal. She raised two assignments of error, primarily arguing that the trial court incorrectly assessed her expert witness's testimony regarding the quality of repairs made to her vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, applying a manifest weight analysis, which dictates that judgments supported by competent and credible evidence should not be overturned simply due to differing opinions about witness credibility. The court reiterated that findings of fact by the trial court are assumed correct, particularly because the trial judge has the opportunity to observe witness demeanor. At trial, Rasner testified that she purchased a new BMW in 2001, which she serviced at a dealership for the first 50,000 miles before switching to Sharp Care, where she had previously serviced other vehicles. In February 2007, Sharp Care conducted a diagnostic evaluation and performed an oil change, indicating the vehicle was in good condition. In June 2007, after the car failed to start, Sharp Care installed a new battery without further services requested. Subsequently, in August 2007, Rasner's son experienced a breakdown while driving the car, which had over 200,000 miles at that time. Alex Bittenbinder, Rasner's husband, testified as an expert in car repair after disassembling the engine of Rasner's car, which had broken down. He found a hole in the engine block, broken parts in the oil pan, minimal oil that resembled sludge, and concluded that the engine failed due to insufficient and incorrect oil usage. He alleged that Sharp Care used regular oil instead of the required synthetic oil during a February 2007 oil change, but did not provide evidence to support his claim. Rasner wrote two letters to Sharp Care in September and October 2007, mentioning various vehicle issues but not the engine or oil problems. Sergey Shepchick, owner of Sharp Care, testified that he used synthetic oil during the oil change and had not changed the oil again before the breakdown. Rasner could not refute Shepchick's statements. The jury was entitled to assess the credibility of witnesses, and the trial court's judgment was supported by credible evidence. Rasner's first assignment of error was overruled. In her second assignment of error, Rasner contended that Sharp Care violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) by failing to provide written estimates for services. However, the law requires claims to be filed within two years of the violation, and since Rasner's complaint was filed in December 2009 regarding events from February and June 2007, her claims were time-barred. Consequently, her second assignment was also overruled, and the judgment was affirmed, with costs awarded to the appellee. The court found reasonable grounds for the appeal and issued a mandate for execution of the judgment.