Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Monday, February 17, 2014 11:24:27 AM
CASE NUMBER: 2010 CV 02284 Docket ID: 18864187
GREGORY A BRUSH
CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
HARVEST LAND CO-OP., INC. * CASE NO. 2010 CV 02284
Plaintiff, * JUDGE DENNIS J. ADKINS
-vs- * MAGISTRATE DAVID H. FUCHSMAN
FRANKIE J. HORA, et al. *
Defendants. *
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION
______________________________________________________________________________
I. HISTORY OF CASE
This case was a remand from the Second District Court on December 14, 2012, in which
the court sustained the judgment rendered Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. (hereafter “Harvest Land”),
against Defendants Frankie J. Hora and Mary Hora (hereafter “Horas”), on their promissory
note. The court also sustained an award of attorney fees, and sustained the lower court’s decision
awarding judgment in favor of Harvest Land on Horas’ Counterclaim. The higher court did
remand the case for further proceedings requiring Harvest Land to provide an accounting, which
preceded the note. An accounting was provided.
That issue of accounting was heard on September 3rd and 4th, 2013, before Magistrate
RAY A. COX Fuchsman.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Magistrate Fuchsman rendered his decision on December 2, 2013, reducing the judgment
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 in favor of Harvest Land and against Horas, jointly and severally, on the promissory note to
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
$89,307.15, with interest thereon according to the terms of the note.
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-1-
This reduction of judgment is based on Minster Farmers Cooperative Exchange
Company, Inc. v Meyer, 117 Ohio St. 3d 459, where “(t)he creditor began charging a higher
interest rate and stated this interest rate on its invoices but did not otherwise secure the
agreement of the debtors to the higher rate.” Minster Farmers, Supra.
Having found no such agreement in the present case, the Magistrate took judicial notice
of statutory rate of interest in Ohio in 2008 was 8%, and made the approximate set-off from the
account.
Horas, Pro-Se, filed objections to the Magistrate’s decision.
II. OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION
The Horas actually had two (2) series of objections to the Magistrate’s decision. The first
objections was made on December 16, 2013, and then supplemented on January 31, 2014.
Harvest Land responded to the first set of objections on December 19, 2013, which response we
ask to be incorporated herein.
The difficultly of Horas’ objections is that they were repeated throughout their pleadings,
with no attempt with specificity as required by Civ. R. 52(D)(3)(b)(ii). We’ve attempted to sort
out Horas’ objections and respond to each 1. To clarify, we’ve attempted to group the objections
into categories.
III. SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION
1) “The charges that are made to the account are not valid because they did not follow
“contract law” or “policy of Harvest Land.” All field tickets and charges to an account
must be signed.”
2) “While the Defendants did not dispute incorrect charges within sixty (60) days as
RAY A. COX
ATTORNEY AT LAW
provided on the statements sent, Harvest Land did not prove that the statements were in
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
1
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
We make no attempt to respond to Horas’ personal attacks on the Magistrate, but leave that to the Court.
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-2-
fact sent, or that Defendants failed to look at the back of the statements until they were
sued.”
3) “Horas did not receive $17,919.68 in spraying services, because Harvest Land’s evidence
presented at trial failed to establish that Horas received these services.”
4) “Horas did not receive spraying services for a $1,007.00 pre-paid contract, although they
paid for it with a $2,000.00 check which was credited to their account.”
5) “Harvest Land committed fraud.”
IV. RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
1) “The charges that are made to the account are not valid because they did not follow
“contract law” or “policy of Harvest Land.” All field tickets and charges to an account
must be signed.”
RESPONSE: We are not sure what “contract law” the Horas are referring to. We are
dealing with an account.
“An “account” is generally defined as an unsettled claim or demand, by one
person against another, which creates a debtor.”
1 O Jur 3d §1 (Accounts and Accounting).
In this case, there is no suit on account. Rather there was a suit on a promissory note. The
issue of an “accounting” only deals with what makes up the amount of the note. The
Magistrate’s decision amended the judgment on the promissory note because of interest charged
on the account. It is true that an action on the account is founded on contract. Arthur v.
Parenteau, 102 Ohio App. 3d 302 (1995). That is not what we are talking about here. This is an
action on a negotiable instrument.
We have no idea what “policy” of Harvest Land that the Horas feel was not followed.
Harvest Land’s policy is to sell products and be paid for it. Harvest Land’s policy is also to help
farmers do a workout of an overdue account, by converting the debt to a promissory note,
RAY A. COX allowing the farmer to take additional time to make payments. That is exactly what happened
ATTORNEY AT LAW
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE here. There is no violation of “policy” of Harvest Land. Even if there were, it has nothing to do
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221
with the case at bar.
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-3-
Horas take issue with “Stan Hicks’s” testimony. Mr. Hicks (hereafter “Hicks”) is an
officer of Harvest Land, and is knowledgeable about Harvest Land’s operation. Hicks testified
that where spraying and wind are involved, a spray report must be filled out. It is called a field
ticket. There is no requirement the field ticket be signed by the customer.
Some charges to the account would not have a field ticket, because they were products
bought that did not require spraying, or a service where wind was not involved. There are also
services where spraying, identified as “dribbles”, would not require a field ticket because it did
not involve wind.
Nowhere in Hicks testimony, or in any law, is there a requirement that field tickets have
to be signed. In fact, Hicks testified that most field tickets are not signed, because a farmer is
seldom there when the spraying is done. In other words, the spraying occurs during the farming
season, when the farmer is out working in another field. Hicks did testify that Harvest Land
would often require signatures on new customers, where there is no credit history. That was for
internal protection.
A like matter occurs on the Horas’ claim that each account had to be signed for. That is
nonsense. People buy products every day of the year on account, with product being delivered,
and not signed for.
Horas also stated (without authority), that under “contract law”, the signature is required
in order to verify meeting of the minds, for value and consideration in acceptance. They have no
authority for this. That is because it isn’t true.
This case is involved with determining the appropriate amount of a negotiable instrument
through an accounting.
2) “While the Defendants did not dispute incorrect charges within sixty (60) days as
provided on the statements sent, Harvest Land did not prove that the statements were in
fact sent, or that Defendants failed to look at the back of the statements until they were
sued.”
RESPONSE: Harvest Land’s statements are sent on a monthly basis and include a
RAY A. COX
provision that if the recipient (customer) has any objection to the invoice, they raise it within
ATTORNEY AT LAW sixty (60) days so that Harvest Land could investigate, and if appropriate, make adjustments.
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 This file is replete with testimony that no objections to any of the invoices were made by Horas
until suit was filed.
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-4-
Horas also argue that there is no “evidence or testimony” presented, to prove that Horas
received account statements from Harvest Land. That is actually not true. Hora testified that he
had received statements from Harvest Land.
Anyway, the admitted fact that Horas made payments on invoices would seem to indicate
that they received the statements. How else would they know what to pay?
3) “A claim that they did not receive $17,919.68 in spraying services, because Harvest
Land’s evidence presented at trial failed to establish that Horas received these services.”
RESPONSE: Horas argue that the Magistrate incorrectly held that the Horas received
$17,919.68 worth of service, because there was no signed field applicator report. That issue has
been discussed previously. However, Plaintiff’s witness Ryan Crawford testified that the “order”
was not signed by anyone, and that none of them ever are. (Crawford p. 969).
Witnesses Crawford and Ott testified at trial that the property had been sprayed. Further,
the Magistrate correctly found that he had delivered it, and Ott weighed it, so they know the
application occurred.
Anyway, the burden is on Horas to show they didn’t receive this spraying. Harvest
Land’s burden is to show the account.
4) “Horas did not receive spraying services for $1,007.00 pre-paid contract, although they
paid for it with a $2,000.00 check which was credited to their account.”
RESPONSE: Here Horas argue that they did not receive a $1,007.00 pre-paid contract
spraying. That is true. They didn’t. That is because they had to pre-pay the contract to receive
the service. This is done to lock-in the price, and the testimony was clear that while the offer was
made, payment was never received. “Pre-paid”, means just what is says. In order to be obligated
to make the spraying, it had to be pre-paid. Harvest Land can then lock in the price on the
chemical.
Horas argue that a $2,000.00 check included the $1,007.00 pre-payment. The $2,000.00
check was properly credited, but there was nothing on the $2,000.00 check that indicated that it
RAY A. COX
ATTORNEY AT LAW
was for the pre-payment called for.
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE
Again, this is Horas’ burden.
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-5-
5) “Harvest Land committed fraud.”
RESPONSE: Horas argue that there were four (4) “frauds” made by Harvest Land.
Hora argues that there was a “$46,295.37 charge illegally made to his account with a false date
of entry”; that there was a “$79,089.63 charge illegally made to his account”; that there was a
failure to keep records that Harvest Land cannot show postings of products or services provided;
and finally, Harvest Land illegally charged interest to Horas’ account, which was concealed from
account holder until discovery 2013. This is all “fraud”, Horas say.
The trouble with this argument is that the Horas do not understand what civil fraud is in
the State of Ohio. Fraud is: “(1) a representation (or concealment where there is a duty to
disclose); (2) which is material to the transaction; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of or
reckless disregard as to its falsity; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5)
justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or concealment, and (6) resulting injury proximately
caused by the reliance.” Rose v. Zaring Homes,122 Ohio App. 3d 739.
The burden of showing civil fraud was upon Horas. Nowhere was such evidence
presented.
V. SUMMARY
This matter was sent on remand of an accounting. That is all. Harvest Land argued in the
beginning that its duty was only to show an accounting from the last zero balance. In fact, as
confirmed by the Magistrate’s decision, Harvest Land showed not one (1) but three (3) zero
balances.
As indicated by the Court of Appeals, and verified by the Magistrate, the burden of
showing an accounting was upon Harvest Land. It did that. The duty then shifted to the Horas to
show the account was not correct. Horas did not do that. Instead, they attempted to retry a
complete lawsuit, mostly on matters already decided. The Appellate Court did not order a new
RAY A. COX
trial.
ATTORNEY AT LAW Throughout the trial, the Magistrate prompted Horas to stick to the point – which was,
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 ‘what is wrong with the accounting’? Instead, Horas spent two and a half (2 ½ ) days retrying the
original lawsuit, including allegations of fraud that had no place in this case.
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-6-
We are concerned with the personal attacks upon the Magistrate, who bent over
backwards to assist the Horas at this trial. Horas appeared Pro-Se. That was their right. But the
law is also clear that if they wish to do so, they are assumed to understand the law. They don’t.
The Court has no other obligation to them other than as a regular litigant.
Finally, Horas make a big deal over the “false spreadsheet”, identified as Plaintiff’s
Exhibit 1. That “spreadsheet” was only to summarize Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2A and 2B. It was
never admitted into evidence.
The objections should be overruled, and this case should continue to final judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ray A. Cox
Ray A. Cox, Esq. (0011711)
265 Regency Ridge Drive
Dayton, OH 45459
Telephone: 937 291-3119
Facsimile: 937 291-3229
ray.a.cox@sbcglobal.net
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 17, 2014, I served Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Objections to Magistrate’s Decision by U.S. mail to the following:
Frankie J. Hora and
Mary D. Hora
15725 Eaton Pike
West Alexandria, OH 45381
Defendants, Pro Se
/s/ Ray A. Cox, Esq.
Ray A. Cox, Esq. (0011711)
265 Regency Ridge Drive
RAY A. COX
Dayton OH 45459
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Telephone: 937-291-3119
265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE Facsimile: 937-291-3229
DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 ray.a.cox@sbcglobal.net
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff
POST OFFICE BOX 751292
DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292
937-291-3119
FAX 937-291-3229
-7-
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Monday, February 17, 2014 11:24:27 AM CASE NUMBER: 2010 CV 02284 Docket ID: 18864187 GREGORY A BRUSH CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION HARVEST LAND CO-OP., INC. * CASE NO. 2010 CV 02284 Plaintiff, * JUDGE DENNIS J. ADKINS -vs- * MAGISTRATE DAVID H. FUCHSMAN FRANKIE J. HORA, et al. * Defendants. * ______________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION ______________________________________________________________________________ I. HISTORY OF CASE This case was a remand from the Second District Court on December 14, 2012, in which the court sustained the judgment rendered Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. (hereafter “Harvest Land”), against Defendants Frankie J. Hora and Mary Hora (hereafter “Horas”), on their promissory note. The court also sustained an award of attorney fees, and sustained the lower court’s decision awarding judgment in favor of Harvest Land on Horas’ Counterclaim. The higher court did remand the case for further proceedings requiring Harvest Land to provide an accounting, which preceded the note. An accounting was provided. That issue of accounting was heard on September 3rd and 4th, 2013, before Magistrate RAY A. COX Fuchsman. ATTORNEY AT LAW Magistrate Fuchsman rendered his decision on December 2, 2013, reducing the judgment 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 in favor of Harvest Land and against Horas, jointly and severally, on the promissory note to POST OFFICE BOX 751292 $89,307.15, with interest thereon according to the terms of the note. DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -1- This reduction of judgment is based on Minster Farmers Cooperative Exchange Company, Inc. v Meyer, 117 Ohio St. 3d 459, where “(t)he creditor began charging a higher interest rate and stated this interest rate on its invoices but did not otherwise secure the agreement of the debtors to the higher rate.” Minster Farmers, Supra. Having found no such agreement in the present case, the Magistrate took judicial notice of statutory rate of interest in Ohio in 2008 was 8%, and made the approximate set-off from the account. Horas, Pro-Se, filed objections to the Magistrate’s decision. II. OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION The Horas actually had two (2) series of objections to the Magistrate’s decision. The first objections was made on December 16, 2013, and then supplemented on January 31, 2014. Harvest Land responded to the first set of objections on December 19, 2013, which response we ask to be incorporated herein. The difficultly of Horas’ objections is that they were repeated throughout their pleadings, with no attempt with specificity as required by Civ. R. 52(D)(3)(b)(ii). We’ve attempted to sort out Horas’ objections and respond to each 1. To clarify, we’ve attempted to group the objections into categories. III. SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION 1) “The charges that are made to the account are not valid because they did not follow “contract law” or “policy of Harvest Land.” All field tickets and charges to an account must be signed.” 2) “While the Defendants did not dispute incorrect charges within sixty (60) days as RAY A. COX ATTORNEY AT LAW provided on the statements sent, Harvest Land did not prove that the statements were in 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 POST OFFICE BOX 751292 1 DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 We make no attempt to respond to Horas’ personal attacks on the Magistrate, but leave that to the Court. 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -2- fact sent, or that Defendants failed to look at the back of the statements until they were sued.” 3) “Horas did not receive $17,919.68 in spraying services, because Harvest Land’s evidence presented at trial failed to establish that Horas received these services.” 4) “Horas did not receive spraying services for a $1,007.00 pre-paid contract, although they paid for it with a $2,000.00 check which was credited to their account.” 5) “Harvest Land committed fraud.” IV. RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS 1) “The charges that are made to the account are not valid because they did not follow “contract law” or “policy of Harvest Land.” All field tickets and charges to an account must be signed.” RESPONSE: We are not sure what “contract law” the Horas are referring to. We are dealing with an account. “An “account” is generally defined as an unsettled claim or demand, by one person against another, which creates a debtor.” 1 O Jur 3d §1 (Accounts and Accounting). In this case, there is no suit on account. Rather there was a suit on a promissory note. The issue of an “accounting” only deals with what makes up the amount of the note. The Magistrate’s decision amended the judgment on the promissory note because of interest charged on the account. It is true that an action on the account is founded on contract. Arthur v. Parenteau, 102 Ohio App. 3d 302 (1995). That is not what we are talking about here. This is an action on a negotiable instrument. We have no idea what “policy” of Harvest Land that the Horas feel was not followed. Harvest Land’s policy is to sell products and be paid for it. Harvest Land’s policy is also to help farmers do a workout of an overdue account, by converting the debt to a promissory note, RAY A. COX allowing the farmer to take additional time to make payments. That is exactly what happened ATTORNEY AT LAW 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE here. There is no violation of “policy” of Harvest Land. Even if there were, it has nothing to do DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 with the case at bar. POST OFFICE BOX 751292 DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -3- Horas take issue with “Stan Hicks’s” testimony. Mr. Hicks (hereafter “Hicks”) is an officer of Harvest Land, and is knowledgeable about Harvest Land’s operation. Hicks testified that where spraying and wind are involved, a spray report must be filled out. It is called a field ticket. There is no requirement the field ticket be signed by the customer. Some charges to the account would not have a field ticket, because they were products bought that did not require spraying, or a service where wind was not involved. There are also services where spraying, identified as “dribbles”, would not require a field ticket because it did not involve wind. Nowhere in Hicks testimony, or in any law, is there a requirement that field tickets have to be signed. In fact, Hicks testified that most field tickets are not signed, because a farmer is seldom there when the spraying is done. In other words, the spraying occurs during the farming season, when the farmer is out working in another field. Hicks did testify that Harvest Land would often require signatures on new customers, where there is no credit history. That was for internal protection. A like matter occurs on the Horas’ claim that each account had to be signed for. That is nonsense. People buy products every day of the year on account, with product being delivered, and not signed for. Horas also stated (without authority), that under “contract law”, the signature is required in order to verify meeting of the minds, for value and consideration in acceptance. They have no authority for this. That is because it isn’t true. This case is involved with determining the appropriate amount of a negotiable instrument through an accounting. 2) “While the Defendants did not dispute incorrect charges within sixty (60) days as provided on the statements sent, Harvest Land did not prove that the statements were in fact sent, or that Defendants failed to look at the back of the statements until they were sued.” RESPONSE: Harvest Land’s statements are sent on a monthly basis and include a RAY A. COX provision that if the recipient (customer) has any objection to the invoice, they raise it within ATTORNEY AT LAW sixty (60) days so that Harvest Land could investigate, and if appropriate, make adjustments. 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 This file is replete with testimony that no objections to any of the invoices were made by Horas until suit was filed. POST OFFICE BOX 751292 DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -4- Horas also argue that there is no “evidence or testimony” presented, to prove that Horas received account statements from Harvest Land. That is actually not true. Hora testified that he had received statements from Harvest Land. Anyway, the admitted fact that Horas made payments on invoices would seem to indicate that they received the statements. How else would they know what to pay? 3) “A claim that they did not receive $17,919.68 in spraying services, because Harvest Land’s evidence presented at trial failed to establish that Horas received these services.” RESPONSE: Horas argue that the Magistrate incorrectly held that the Horas received $17,919.68 worth of service, because there was no signed field applicator report. That issue has been discussed previously. However, Plaintiff’s witness Ryan Crawford testified that the “order” was not signed by anyone, and that none of them ever are. (Crawford p. 969). Witnesses Crawford and Ott testified at trial that the property had been sprayed. Further, the Magistrate correctly found that he had delivered it, and Ott weighed it, so they know the application occurred. Anyway, the burden is on Horas to show they didn’t receive this spraying. Harvest Land’s burden is to show the account. 4) “Horas did not receive spraying services for $1,007.00 pre-paid contract, although they paid for it with a $2,000.00 check which was credited to their account.” RESPONSE: Here Horas argue that they did not receive a $1,007.00 pre-paid contract spraying. That is true. They didn’t. That is because they had to pre-pay the contract to receive the service. This is done to lock-in the price, and the testimony was clear that while the offer was made, payment was never received. “Pre-paid”, means just what is says. In order to be obligated to make the spraying, it had to be pre-paid. Harvest Land can then lock in the price on the chemical. Horas argue that a $2,000.00 check included the $1,007.00 pre-payment. The $2,000.00 check was properly credited, but there was nothing on the $2,000.00 check that indicated that it RAY A. COX ATTORNEY AT LAW was for the pre-payment called for. 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE Again, this is Horas’ burden. DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 POST OFFICE BOX 751292 DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -5- 5) “Harvest Land committed fraud.” RESPONSE: Horas argue that there were four (4) “frauds” made by Harvest Land. Hora argues that there was a “$46,295.37 charge illegally made to his account with a false date of entry”; that there was a “$79,089.63 charge illegally made to his account”; that there was a failure to keep records that Harvest Land cannot show postings of products or services provided; and finally, Harvest Land illegally charged interest to Horas’ account, which was concealed from account holder until discovery 2013. This is all “fraud”, Horas say. The trouble with this argument is that the Horas do not understand what civil fraud is in the State of Ohio. Fraud is: “(1) a representation (or concealment where there is a duty to disclose); (2) which is material to the transaction; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of or reckless disregard as to its falsity; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or concealment, and (6) resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance.” Rose v. Zaring Homes,122 Ohio App. 3d 739. The burden of showing civil fraud was upon Horas. Nowhere was such evidence presented. V. SUMMARY This matter was sent on remand of an accounting. That is all. Harvest Land argued in the beginning that its duty was only to show an accounting from the last zero balance. In fact, as confirmed by the Magistrate’s decision, Harvest Land showed not one (1) but three (3) zero balances. As indicated by the Court of Appeals, and verified by the Magistrate, the burden of showing an accounting was upon Harvest Land. It did that. The duty then shifted to the Horas to show the account was not correct. Horas did not do that. Instead, they attempted to retry a complete lawsuit, mostly on matters already decided. The Appellate Court did not order a new RAY A. COX trial. ATTORNEY AT LAW Throughout the trial, the Magistrate prompted Horas to stick to the point – which was, 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 ‘what is wrong with the accounting’? Instead, Horas spent two and a half (2 ½ ) days retrying the original lawsuit, including allegations of fraud that had no place in this case. POST OFFICE BOX 751292 DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -6- We are concerned with the personal attacks upon the Magistrate, who bent over backwards to assist the Horas at this trial. Horas appeared Pro-Se. That was their right. But the law is also clear that if they wish to do so, they are assumed to understand the law. They don’t. The Court has no other obligation to them other than as a regular litigant. Finally, Horas make a big deal over the “false spreadsheet”, identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. That “spreadsheet” was only to summarize Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2A and 2B. It was never admitted into evidence. The objections should be overruled, and this case should continue to final judgment. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ray A. Cox Ray A. Cox, Esq. (0011711) 265 Regency Ridge Drive Dayton, OH 45459 Telephone: 937 291-3119 Facsimile: 937 291-3229 ray.a.cox@sbcglobal.net Trial Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 17, 2014, I served Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate’s Decision by U.S. mail to the following: Frankie J. Hora and Mary D. Hora 15725 Eaton Pike West Alexandria, OH 45381 Defendants, Pro Se /s/ Ray A. Cox, Esq. Ray A. Cox, Esq. (0011711) 265 Regency Ridge Drive RAY A. COX Dayton OH 45459 ATTORNEY AT LAW Telephone: 937-291-3119 265 REGENCY RIDGE DRIVE Facsimile: 937-291-3229 DAYTON, OHIO 45459-4221 ray.a.cox@sbcglobal.net Trial Attorney for Plaintiff POST OFFICE BOX 751292 DAYTON, OHIO 45475-1292 937-291-3119 FAX 937-291-3229 -7-