Background
Greater Dayton Premier Management filed an eviction complaint against tenant Taylor Bryant in February 2026, seeking possession of the premises and money damages for unpaid rent, arrearages, and damages. The landlord attached the lease, termination notice, affidavit, and HUD notices to its complaint. Process was issued to Bryant by regular mail at the address listed in the complaint.
Bryant did not appear at the restitution hearing before a magistrate. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted the landlord restitution of the premises. The landlord then dismissed its separate damages claim, and Bryant appealed, principally asserting that she had not been served with the complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Bryant’s appellate brief did not state any assignment of error as required by Ohio Appellate Rule 16, and it included attachments outside the trial-court record that the appellate court could not consider.
Bryant also did not provide a transcript of the proceedings. Without a transcript, the court presumed the regularity of the proceedings below. The record before the court indicated that Bryant had been served and failed to attend the restitution hearing, so her presumed service challenge failed.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must identify assignments of error and support them in a compliant appellate brief.
- Appellate review is limited to the record before the trial court.
- Absent a transcript, an appellate court presumes the trial court proceedings were regular.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even a pro se appellant bears the burden to provide a reviewable appellate record and properly frame claimed error. A generalized assertion of lack of service will not overcome a record showing service when the appellant supplies neither assignments of error nor a transcript.