Background
Forge Fire & Company, LLC (“FF&Co.”) filed suit in March 2025 in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas against Lincoln Center Manufacturing, LLC, Marengo Fabricated Steel, Ltd., and several individual defendants, alleging breach of a manufacturing agreement for fire training equipment and seeking damages for tortious interference and to pierce the corporate veil. Defendants moved to transfer venue to Morrow County on the ground that the facts underlying the claims did not arise in Richland County, and also requested attorney fees and costs incurred in securing the transfer.
The trial court granted the transfer and the associated fee request on May 28, 2025, though FF&Co.’s opposition arrived just under an hour later. A procedurally tangled series of reconsideration orders followed, with the trial court ultimately concluding it had lost jurisdiction once the original transfer order issued. The case was transferred to Morrow County, whereupon FF&Co. voluntarily dismissed and refiled in Crawford County. The fee question remained pending in Richland County.
A magistrate held a hearing on September 30, 2025 and issued a decision recommending that FF&Co. had acted deliberately and heedlessly in selecting Richland County as an improper venue, entitling defendants to an award of attorney fees and costs. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision over FF&Co.’s objections on January 6, 2026, and FF&Co. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on a narrow procedural ground. Because FF&Co. failed to file a transcript of the magistrate’s September 30, 2025 hearing when it objected to the magistrate’s decision, the appellate court’s review was severely constrained. Under Ohio Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), an objection to a factual finding must be supported by a transcript of the relevant evidence, or by an affidavit of that evidence only when a transcript is unavailable. FF&Co. offered instead a pre-existing affidavit from Todd Shepherd that had been filed before the hearing ever occurred, which the court found plainly insufficient.
The court held that the affidavit was defective on two independent grounds: first, FF&Co. made no showing that a transcript was actually unavailable—it simply failed to obtain one; and second, the affidavit predated the hearing entirely and therefore contained no description of the evidence actually presented under oath and subject to cross-examination. Under controlling Fifth District precedent, where no proper transcript or substitute is provided, the magistrate’s factual findings are deemed established, and appellate review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the law to those facts.
Applying that standard, the court found no abuse of discretion. Because the magistrate’s factual finding that FF&Co. acted deliberately and heedlessly in choosing an improper venue was treated as established, the legal conclusion that defendants were entitled to attorney fees and costs followed without error. FF&Co.’s sole assignment of error was overruled and costs on appeal were assessed against FF&Co.
Key Takeaways
- Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), a party objecting to a magistrate’s factual findings must submit a hearing transcript; an affidavit of the evidence is only permissible when the party demonstrates a transcript is genuinely unavailable—mere failure to obtain one is insufficient.
- An affidavit filed before a magistrate’s hearing cannot substitute for a record of that hearing; it must describe the evidence actually presented at the hearing.
- When a proper transcript or substitute is absent, the magistrate’s findings of fact are conclusively established, limiting appellate review to whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the law to those findings.
- Ohio courts may award attorney fees against a party that deliberately and heedlessly files suit in an improper venue, and such a factual finding is insulated from challenge on appeal when the party fails to preserve the evidentiary record.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that procedural compliance in post-hearing objections is not a formality—it is the mechanism by which a party preserves any meaningful appellate challenge to a magistrate’s factual conclusions. Attorneys who skip the step of obtaining and filing a hearing transcript effectively waive their ability to contest the underlying facts, regardless of the merits of their substantive arguments.
The case also reinforces Ohio courts’ willingness to impose attorney fee sanctions when a plaintiff’s choice of venue is found to be deliberate and heedless rather than a good-faith assessment of a close question. For litigants handling multi-party commercial disputes where venue may be contested, the cost of losing that fight can extend well beyond a transfer order.