Szaraz v. Automotive Specialties, Inc.

Citation: 2016 Ohio 5232Docket: 103305

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; August 4, 2016; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Automotive Specialties, Inc. (ASI) appeals a judgment from the Garfield Heights Municipal Court awarding Jon Szaraz $160 plus interest. ASI raises five errors: (1) the trial court improperly denied objections to evidence; (2) the court allowed admission of unverified evidence; (3) the judgment against ASI was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (4) the counterclaim was dismissed improperly; and (5) the trial court did not enforce its procedural rules regarding Szaraz's submission of two repair invoices.

Szaraz, representing himself, claimed ASI charged him more than double the estimated repair cost, caused additional vehicle damage, and necessitated further repairs. ASI's manager, Benny Scaglione, argued he could not be held personally liable as an employee. ASI also submitted a letter stating that they discovered more extensive damage once repairs began, claimed Szaraz authorized additional work, and noted that the final charge was $361.80 rather than the initially quoted amount of $734.40. 

Following a hearing on March 23, 2015, a magistrate initially awarded Szaraz $160. ASI then obtained legal representation, contested the magistrate's decision, and requested the trial court to reconsider the findings. The trial court later determined that Szaraz's vehicle was quoted a lower repair price, but the final charge included extra costs for parts and labor that Szaraz had to pay to retrieve his vehicle. The trial court affirmed the original judgment in favor of Szaraz.

The Plaintiff had a snow removal contract, known to Scaglione, and to avoid default, paid ASI $361.80. The Plaintiff did not provide evidence that ASI caused further damage to his vehicle, while ASI failed to show that the Plaintiff agreed to pay more than $150.00. ASI's claim of working additional hours does not justify the extra amount claimed. The trial court found that ASI breached the contract by charging the Plaintiff $132 for rusty bolts and $28 for a part previously supplied, resulting in a judgment of $160 against ASI. Scaglione was not liable for the contract, and the Plaintiff did not demonstrate that ASI caused any additional vehicle damage. ASI's counterclaim lacked credible evidence since the Plaintiff never agreed to the higher payment.

The trial court allowed an unauthenticated estimate from "Jim's Auto" to be presented; however, rules of evidence are relaxed in small claims court to facilitate quick and informal dispute resolution. The estimate was intended to show damage from ASI's repairs, but the court found no additional damage and based its award on the agreed price of $150, rendering any error in admitting the estimate harmless. ASI's claims that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence were overruled, as the court determined there was competent evidence supporting the judgment. The trier of fact is empowered to assess the credibility of evidence, and despite ASI's assertion that Szaraz authorized increased repair costs, the trial court's judgment stands.

Szaraz anticipated only a slight increase in repair costs due to the rust on his vehicle, as indicated by Scaglione’s comments about encountering rusty bolts. Szaraz testified he felt pressured to initial the repair agreement to retrieve his truck. The trial court favored Szaraz's credibility over Scaglione's, overruling ASI's third assigned error regarding the credibility of witness testimony. ASI's fourth assigned error, concerning the dismissal of its counterclaim for $808.60, was also overruled; the court found ASI lacked credible evidence that Szaraz agreed to pay more than $150 for services. ASI's argument that the trial court failed to follow procedural rules regarding estimates and title was dismissed, as the rules apply to automobile accidents, not to claims of negligent repairs. ASI's claim regarding a VIN mismatch was considered a likely clerical error, with no evidence suggesting different vehicles were involved. The court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to Szaraz and recognizing reasonable grounds for ASI’s appeal, directing execution of the judgment by the Garfield Heights Municipal Court.