Reco Equipment, Inc. vs. Sirous Jafari dba Real Pros Construction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT RECO EQUIPMENT, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIROUS JAFARI D.B.A. REAL PROS CONSTRUCTION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 99-BA-45 O P I N I O N CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Belmont County, Western Division, Court Case No. 99CVI00076 JUDGMENT: Affirmed APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Reco Equipment P.O. Box 160 Morristown, Ohio 43759 (no brief) For Defendant-Appellant: Sirous Jafari, pro se c/o Real Pros Construction 1700 Rockville Pike, #400 Rockville, Maryland 20852 JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: April 27, 2001 - 1 DONOFRIO, J. Defendant-appellant, Sirous Jafari, appeals a judgment rendered in the Belmont County Court, Western Division, awarding $491.51 to plaintiff-appellee, Reco Equipment, Inc. This case arises from a dispute over the purchase of a used Bobcat. Appellant purchased the machine from appellee. Appellant also agreed to pay appellee to perform some repairs on the machine. Appellee performed the repairs and, after appellant refused to pay for them, filed a small claim complaint against appellant seeking $491.51. $2,900.00. Appellant alleged Appellant cross-claimed for fraud and misrepresentation concerning the sale. The case proceeded to a bench trial on July Appellee presented the testimony of two witnesses. 2, 1999. Appellant, proceeding pro se, testified on his own behalf and submitted certain documents. On July 16, 1999, the trial court filed its decision entering judgment for appellee in the amount of $491.51 and denying appellant s counterclaim. This appeal followed. Appellant s brief consists of one paragraph of argument occupying no more than one-half of one 8½ x 11 piece of paper. He presents no appellate rules. appellee s assignment of error as is required by the The crux of his argument is that one of witnesses perjured himself at trial. However, - 2 appellant presents nothing in the way of evidentiary or record support. In Jancuk v. Jancuk (Nov. 24, 1997), Mahoning App. No. 94 C.A. 221, unreported, 1997 WL 778831 at *5, this court noted: Although appellant is proceeding pro se, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as litigants who retain counsel. Meyers v. First National Bank of Cincinnati (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 209, 210, 444 N.E.2d 412. See also Dawson v. Pauline Homes, Inc. (1958), 107 Ohio App. 90, 154 N.E.2d 164. This court has, of course, made some allowances for pro se litigants, such as in the construction of pleadings and in the formal requirements of briefs. There is, however, a limit. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se filings do not require courts to conjure up questions never squarely asked or construct full-blown claims from convoluted reasoning. Karmasu v. Tate (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 199, 206, 614 N.E.2d 827. Furthermore, this court will not become appellate counsel for pro se litigants. Such action would be inherently unjust to the adverse party. Appellant, as the party asserting an error in the trial court, bears the burden to demonstrate error by reference to matters made part of the record in the court of appeals. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199; App.R. 9(B). More appellant specifically, include in his App.R. brief 16(A)(7) an requires argument that containing an his contentions with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with - 3 citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies. Appellant has made no reference to matters made part of the record before this proceedings below. witnesses for court demonstrating any error in the Although he alleges perjury by one of the appellee, he support for this contention. offers no evidentiary or record Accordingly, we are left with no choice but to summarily affirm the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Waite, J., concurs DeGenaro, J., concurs
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
