[Cite as Tyler v. Walker, 2026-Ohio-3196.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
Crystal Tyler Court of Appeals No. {48}L-26-00055
Appellee Trial Court No. CVI-25-15679
v.
Robert Walker DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 18, 2026
*****
Lucinda J. Weller, for appellee.
Robert Walker, pro se, appellant.
*****
SULEK, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Robert Walker appeals the judgment of the Toledo Municipal
Court finding in favor of appellee Crystal Tyler on her small claims action and awarding
her $3,443.00 in damages. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On September 15, 2025, Tyler filed a small claims complaint against
Walker, alleging that she moved out of their residence and left behind several items. She obtained a civil protection order against Walker, and when she went with the police to
retrieve her items, Walker refused to return her couch, refrigerator, washer and dryer,
grill, power washer, and trampoline. Tyler sought damages of $4,050.00 plus court costs.
{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a magistrate on November 24,
2025. Following the hearing, the magistrate entered a decision finding that Tyler proved
that the items were her personal property. The magistrate awarded her judgment in the
amount of $3,443.00 plus costs, which reflected a 15% deduction for depreciation in the
value of the items.
{¶ 4} Walker objected to the magistrate’s decision, claiming that the evidence
showed that Tyler gave the property to him. He further argued that the value of the
property did not reflect the condition of the property and the damage she caused to it.
Tyler opposed the objections. Notably, the trial court’s docket does not reflect that
Walker requested or provided a transcript of the hearing as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b)(iii).
{¶ 5} On February 17, 2026, the trial court denied Walker’s objections and
adopted the magistrate’s decision. It awarded judgment in favor of Tyler in the amount
of $3,443.00 plus costs.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 6} Walker now appeals the trial court’s February 17, 2026 decision. He has not
identified assignments of error as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but he does list seven
arguments:
1. The Judgment is Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.
2.
2. Appellee Voluntarily Relinquished or Gifted the Disputed Items.
3. Appellee Retained Access and Failed to Mitigate.
4. Appellee’s Trampoline Claim Fails for Lack of Causation.
5. Appellee Used Improper Valuation and Failed to Prove Fair
Market Value.
6. Appellant Sold Higher-Value Property to Accommodate Appellee.
7. Appellee’s Items Were Inferior in Condition and Value.
III. Analysis
{¶ 7} Each of Walker’s arguments require an examination of the record and the
facts that were presented during the hearing before the magistrate. Walker, however, has
failed to request or file the transcript of that hearing.
{¶ 8} “It is well-established that an appellant is required to file a transcript for our
review.” Polk v. Polk, 2026-Ohio-1630, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing Knapp v. Edwards
Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980); see also App.R. 9(B)(3) (“The appellant
shall order the transcript in writing and shall file a copy of the transcript order with the
clerk of the trial court.”). “This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of
showing error by reference to matters in the record.” Id., quoting Knapp at 199.
“Without a transcript, a reviewing court must presume the regularity of the proceedings
in the trial court.” Id., citing Lavelle v. Lavelle, 2012-Ohio-6197, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 9} Walker attempts to avoid this result by including in his amended appellate
brief an App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence. His attempt, however, fails to comply
with App.R. 9(C)(1)’s requirements that it be served on Tyler “no later than twenty days
3.
prior to the time for transmission of the record pursuant to App.R. 10,” and that it “be
forthwith submitted to the trial court for settlement and approval.” As such, this court
cannot consider Walker’s proposed App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence.
{¶ 10} Walker also attempts to supplement the record by appending to his
amended appellate brief 21 exhibits consisting of photographs, text messages, receipts,
and online marketplace listings. But “this court cannot consider any exhibits attached to
a party’s briefs that were not made part of the trial court’s record.” Landis Properties 1,
LLC v. Sheehan, 2024-Ohio-2755, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.), citing Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023-Ohio-169, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.). Without a complete record including a transcript from the
hearing before the magistrate, this court cannot determine whether Walker’s exhibits
were presented in the trial court. As such, this court cannot consider them.
{¶ 11} In sum, “[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of
assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon
and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity
of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp at 199. See also Polk at ¶ 18; Yates
v. Rigby, 2026-Ohio-732, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.) (“Without a complete transcript of the
proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), or an agreed statement
pursuant to App.R. 9(D), an appellate court has no alternative but to presume the
regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment in the trial court.”).
{¶ 12} Accordingly, because Walker failed to file a transcript and record of the
proceedings, this court cannot review his claims and must affirm the trial court’s
judgment. His assignments of error are not well-taken.
4.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is
affirmed. Walker is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.