Cincinnati, Ohio - Breach of Contract lawyer represented defendant with a breach of contract suit.

Dix filed a complaint against Brown and Krumins, who were former

tenants of Dix, asserting claims for breach of contract and a violation of R.C. 5321.01

et seq. The complaint alleged that Brown and Krumins failed to pay rent, late fees, pet

fees, utilities, maintenance charges, and other similar charges, and that, contrary to

the requirements under the parties' lease and the requirements imposed on them

pursuant to R.C. 5321.05, they caused physical damage to the property, beyond normal

wear and tear. Dix sought $5,796.03 in damages, as well as pre-and post-judgment

interest "at the contract rate of 18% per year (lease at §1.7) or the current legal rate,

whichever is greater, from the date Defendants surrendered possession of the subject

premises.”

{¶3} Brown and Krumins asserted counterclaims for unjust enrichment and

breach of contract against Dix. The case was tried before a municipal court magistrate.

On October 27, 2021, the magistrate issued a judgment following trial in favor of Dix

on both its claims and on Brown and Krumins's counterclaims. She awarded Dix

judgment in the amount of $4,438.08, but did not award pre-or post-judgment

interest.

{¶4} On November 10, 2021, Dix timely filed objections to the magistrate's

decision, arguing that the magistrate erred in failing to award Dix pre-and postjudgment interest. On November 15, 2021, the trial court issued an entry adopting the

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

magistrate's decision. The entry made no reference to or mention of the objections

that Dix had filed.

{¶5} Dix appeals from the trial court's entry, arguing in a single assignment

of error that the trial court erred in granting judgment to Dix without awarding preand post-judgment interest.

Failure to Rule on Objections

{¶6} This court only has jurisdiction to review final orders and judgments.

Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2); R.C. 2505.03. A decision issued by a

magistrate remains interlocutory until a trial court "(1) rules on any objections, (2)

adopts, modifies, or rejects the magistrate's decision, and (3) enters a judgment that

determines all the claims for relief.” 255 Fifth Street Holdings LLC v. Chemed Sislin,

LLC, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200083, 2020-Ohio-5248, ¶ 5; Civ.R. 53(D)(4).

{¶7} Here, the trial court's entry did not comply with the first requirement

necessary to render an interlocutory decision issued by a magistrate final. The trial

court never ruled on the objections filed by Dix. The entry made no mention of the

objections and did not indicate whether the trial court overruled them or found them

to be well taken

Because the trial court failed to rule on the pending objections, the

magistrate’s decision remained interlocutory and the trial court’s entry was not a final, appealable order. We consequently lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed