Milton v. Nelson

[Cite as Milton v. Nelson, 2026-Ohio-1513.]


                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                     ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                           TRUMBULL COUNTY

STEPHANIE L. MILTON,                               CASE NO. 2025-T-0054

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                   Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                     Newton Falls Municipal Court

JENNA NELSON,
                                                   Trial Court No. 2025 CVI 00137
                 Defendant-Appellee.


                           OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

                                       Decided: April 27, 2026
                                        Judgment: Affirmed


Danamarie K. Pannella, Holland & Muirden, Attorneys at Law, P.O. Box 345, Sharon
Center, OH 44274 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

April L. Woodward, 12373 Kinsman Road, Suite C111, Newbury, OH 44065 (For
Defendant-Appellee).


EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Stephanie L. Milton, appeals the order entering judgment in favor

of appellee, Jenna Nelson, on Milton’s claims. We affirm.

        {¶2}     In 2024, Milton adopted a seven-year-old mustang mare named “Lily”

through a program administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Milton contracted

with Nelson for the care and training of Lily at Nelson’s facility. After transferring Lily to a

different facility, Milton brought a small claims action against Nelson alleging breach of

contract and animal cruelty.

        {¶3}     After trial, on July 21, 2025, the court issued a judgment in favor of Nelson.
       {¶4}     On appeal, Milton assigns two errors, which we address in reverse order to

facilitate our discussion. In her second assigned error, Milton argues:

       {¶5}     “The judgment of the Trial Court was against the manifest weight of the

evidence and should be reversed.”

       {¶6}     “‘Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of

credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the

other.”’” Koller v. Zellman, 2018-Ohio-2463, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins,

1997-Ohio-52, ¶ 24, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990). “A challenge to the

manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence

presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to

determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest

miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight v. Straight, 2020-

Ohio-4692, ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler v. Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, ¶ 13 (11th

Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. “The weight to be given evidence

and witness credibility are primarily for the trier of fact.” (Citation omitted.) Straight at ¶

25. “The trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony.” (Citation

omitted.) Id.

       {¶7}     Here, Milton brought claims for a breach of contract and for civil liability for

damages resulting from animal cruelty. “In order to be successful on a breach of contract

claim, the plaintiff must provide evidence of the following: (1) the existence of a contract;

(2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4) damages.” Huffman

v. Kazak Bros., 2002-Ohio-1683, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.), citing Doner v. Snapp, 98 Ohio App.3d

597, 600 (2d Dist. 1994).



                                         PAGE 2 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
       {¶8}   Milton brought her claim for animal cruelty under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) and

R.C. 959.13(A)(1). Under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1):

              Anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act has,
              and may recover full damages in, a civil action unless
              specifically excepted by law, may recover the costs of
              maintaining the civil action and attorney’s fees if authorized by
              any provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure or another
              section of the Revised Code or under the common law of this
              state, and may recover punitive or exemplary damages if
              authorized by section 2315.21 or another section of the
              Revised Code.

       {¶9}   Relevant to this appeal, R.C. 959.13(A)(1) provides:

              No person shall . . . [t]orture an animal, deprive one of
              necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat,
              needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal
              without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient
              quantity of good wholesome food and water. . . .

       {¶10} “Civil liability for damages resulting from a criminal act, pursuant to R.C.

2307.60(A)(1), does not require an underlying criminal conviction.” Machlup v. Bowman,

2021-Ohio-4370, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), citing Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 2020-Ohio-3832, ¶ 6-

14.

       {¶11} At trial, the evidence established that Milton and Nelson entered into a

contract for Nelson to board and train Lily. The contract contained the following provisions

relevant to this appeal:

              Client understands that Trainer offers no guarantee or
              warranty of any kind regarding Trainer’s services. In
              particular, Client understands that while Trainer will develop a
              training program for Horse designed to meet Client’s goals,
              Trainer can offer no guarantee that Client’s goals will be met
              within the time period that Client would like, or at all. Each
              horse is an individual and will progress at its own rate and
              according to its own talents and limitations.

              ...

                                       PAGE 3 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
              Horse may lose weight and suffer muscle strain or other
              stress- or labor-induced injuries . . . Client understands and
              expressly assumes all risks of putting horse in training,
              including the risk that Trainer and/or Trainer’s shareholders,
              officers, directors, members, managers, employees, agents,
              contractors and family members (collectively, the “Trainer
              Parties”) may be negligent. Accordingly, Client agrees to hold
              the Trainer Parties harmless for loss of or injury to Horse.

(Boldface omitted.)

       {¶12} After the parties executed the agreement, Lily arrived at Nelson’s facility on

June 15, 2024. When Lily arrived, she had significant nasal discharge. Nelson put Lily in

quarantine and collected a sample of the discharge to have it tested by a veterinarian.

Thereafter, the veterinarian determined that Lily had strep. Lily remained in quarantine

for approximately one month while she recovered.

       {¶13} Milton arrived at the facility in August to visit Lily. Milton testified that Lily’s

“weight appeared fine at that time.” Milton observed Nelson run Lily through a series of

basic training behaviors.

       {¶14} Milton maintained that the parties communicated less frequently from

August into September. Milton testified that she requested pictures and videos during this

time, but Nelson did not send her sufficient information for her to be able to gauge how

Lily was progressing. In September, Milton began to question whether Lily was receiving

proper training. Milton’s associate, Julie Nation, who had also adopted a mustang that

was initially transported with Lily, boarded her mustang at a facility owned by Nelson’s

colleague, MacKenzie Duncan. Nation informed Milton that her mustang had received far

more advanced training than Lily.




                                         PAGE 4 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
        {¶15} In late September, Milton gave Nelson notice that she would be removing

Lily from Nelson’s facility. Milton recalled that Nelson called her, and Nelson seemed

reluctant to let Milton remove the horse because Nelson was worried that the horse had

not progressed as much as she would have liked, and she was concerned about her

reputation. Milton testified that she agreed to post a message of gratitude on social media,

crediting Nelson for training Lily, which seemed to appease Nelson. Milton asked Nelson

to give Lily trailer training so she could be safely moved. Thereafter, Nelson sent her a

video of Lily walking on to a trailer. Milton decided to engage Duncan to board and train

Lily.

        {¶16} On November 2, 2024, Duncan picked up Lily at Nelson’s property. Duncan

sent Milton photographs of Lily, who Milton maintained looked notably thin at the time. On

the weekend of November 9, 2024, Milton and Nation traveled to see Lily in person. When

they arrived, it was clear to Milton that Lily had lost approximately 150 pounds. Milton

maintained that Lily’s pelvic bones were observable, and she appeared to have muscle

atrophy. In addition, Milton observed that “Lily was moving in a very stilted way, she

looked unwell, her coat was not what it should have been, and in human terms, you would

think that she was limping.” Milton submitted to the court pictures taken of Lily after she

had been moved to Duncan’s facility as well as pictures of Lily taken prior to her arrival at

Nelson’s facility.

        {¶17} Milton hired a veterinarian, who examined Lily on November 11, 2024. In

the veterinarian’s report, he rated Lily as a 4.5 on the Henneke Body Condition Scoring

System, which is a scale with a range of 1 through 9 that is used to evaluate horse weight.




                                       PAGE 5 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
After November, Milton learned of another horsewoman who had previously boarded

horses with Nelson who withdrew her horses for being underfed.

       {¶18} On cross-examination, Milton acknowledged that, at the time she received

Lily, she was concerned that she was overweight. Milton reviewed a statement from the

Trumbull County Humane Officer that stated a score of 4.5 on the Henneke scale is

considered normal. The statement further indicated that many factors could lead to weight

loss, including transportation and cold weather.

       {¶19} Following her testimony, Milton called Kaitlyn Frye as a witness. Frye

testified that she adopted a mustang from Nelson in 2022. She began working for Nelson

in 2023, and she was working there when Lily arrived in June 2024. While Lily was in

quarantine, Frye did not see Nelson take her out of the pen to train her, nor did she see

Nelson or anyone else in the pen training her. Frye began to work with Lily when she was

out of quarantine. When Frye was needed for other more difficult horses, Nelson had an

apprentice begin working with Lily. Frye maintained that Nelson would work with Lily once

or twice a week. Eventually Lily’s training was put on the “back burner” because the facility

was busy with other horses. Frye believed that a horse with Lily’s temperament should

have been more solid with her skills after four-and-a-half months of training.

       {¶20} Further, Frye indicated that Lily was fed two flakes of hay in the morning

and two flakes of hay at night. She believed that amount was fed to all of the horses, even

the larger ones. Lily also received about three pounds of grain per day, but Frye

maintained that Lily should have been receiving at least five to six pounds of grain, unless

she was receiving extra forage.




                                       PAGE 6 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
       {¶21} On cross-examination, Frye indicated that she personally fed the horses

two to three evenings per week. Frye did not believe that any animals at Nelson’s facility

had ever been neglected or treated with ill intent.

       {¶22} Next, Milton called Shannon Larson as a witness. Larson testified that she

is a professional horse instructor. She had boarded her own horses at Nelson’s facility.

She had grown frustrated by the lack of feed, and she supplemented her horses’ diet.

She eventually withdrew her horses from Nelson’s facility.

       {¶23} Milton next called Duncan as a witness. Duncan testified that, when she

picked up Lily, she was very concerned with how Lily appeared, and she sent pictures to

Milton. Duncan stated that she “could see -- like, [Lily’s] hips were pointed. There was a

significant dip from her spine to her tail area. She just looked bad. Her coat was dull.” In

addition, she believed Lily should have been doing a lot more with respect to training at

that time. Duncan maintained that Lily had significantly progressed in her weight and

training while under Duncan’s care.

       {¶24} On cross-examination, Duncan affirmed that she had no knowledge of what

Lily’s condition was in the wild for seven years prior to Milton adopting her. However,

Duncan maintained that Lily had a form of lameness. On redirect examination, Duncan

indicated that she believed the Bureau of Land Management, which monitored Lily’s herd,

typically euthanized lame horses in the wild.

       {¶25} Last, Milton called Nation to testify. Nation maintained that she followed

Lily’s trailer, which was also transporting a mustang she adopted, Vinny, to Nelson’s

facility. On route, Lily had developed some mucus in her nostrils. Otherwise, she

appeared in good condition, with a shiny coat and no difficulty in movement. After leaving



                                       PAGE 7 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
Lily at Nelson’s facility, Vinny was then transported to Duncan’s facility. When Nation saw

Lily again in November 2024, she noted that Lily’s “hind legs looked skinny, you could

see her hip bones protruding, she was not muscular but more rounded and flat in areas,

her coat was very drab, it wasn’t shiny. . . .” Nation also observed that Lily was having

difficulty walking. Nation indicated that since Lily has been at Duncan’s facility, she had

progressed in regaining weight and movement, her coat was shiny, and she was

responding to training.

       {¶26} Following Nation’s testimony, Milton rested.

       {¶27} Nelson then testified in her defense. Nelson maintained that her

understanding was that Lily was an unhandled mustang that was coming to her facility to

be “gentled.” Nelson explained that “gentling” involves changing the horse’s perspective

of people from that of predator to partner and teaching certain skills to the horse. She had

no discussion with Milton of an expectation that Lily be lunged, saddled, or ridden within

a certain timeline. Nelson had explained to Milton that she trains the horse at its own pace

and does not push training. She informed Milton that there would be on average 10 to 12

training sessions per week. Nelson testified that she provides shorter sessions when

gentling a mustang because, in her experience, repeated exposure is preferable to

prolonged exposure.

       {¶28} Nelson maintained that Lily did receive 10 to 12 training sessions per week

while at Nelson’s facility. Nelson was Lily’s primary trainer for the first two weeks, and

then her assistant trainer, Jen Politzer, was assigned as Lily’s primary trainer under

Nelson’s supervision. In Nelson’s experience, older mares tend to take the most time to

adjust to domestic life.



                                       PAGE 8 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
        {¶29} Nelson further testified that, because Lily was ill with strep, which is very

contagious, when she arrived, she had to be quarantined. Nelson explained that “when

Lilly (sic.) was in quarantine, she had a very poor appetite, which [Nelson] communicated

to Ms. Milton, but she always had 24/7 access to forage while she was sick.” Lily

continued to have unlimited access to hay until sometime in September, at which point

she was given three-and-a-half to four flakes of hay twice per day. She also received

grain twice per day. Nelson believed that Lily probably lost muscle mass while she was

sick, during which time she would only eat hay, and she rejected grain, alfalfa, and other

products offered to her.

        {¶30} Nelson provided the court with videos of Lily recorded on October 31 and

November 1, 2024. Nelson explained that the October 31, 2024 video showed Lily doing

well, and she did not appear stressed or underweight. Nelson maintained that, in the

November 1, 2024 video, she was interacting with Lily to demonstrate where she was

with her training so that her transition would be smooth when she went to Duncan’s

facility.

        {¶31} With respect to Frye’s account of Lily’s training and feeding, Nelson testified

that Frye was not typically at the facility at the times when Lily would be training, and she

had no feeding responsibilities. On cross-examination, when asked why Nelson’s account

of Lily’s feeding differed from that of Frye, Nelson maintained that Frye was not being

honest in her testimony. Nelson also explained that Larson and Frye brought grain to the

facility because it was not included in board fees that they paid.

        {¶32} Following Nelson’s testimony, she called two of her employees who fed the

horses while Lily was boarded at Nelson’s facility. The testimony of these employees



                                        PAGE 9 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
indicated that Lily’s hay bag would be filled completely twice per day, and she would

receive a “half scoop of Kalm Ultra,” which is a grain, twice per day. Neither employee

had concerns about Lily’s condition. Neither employee had witnessed a horse at Nelson’s

facility that was malnourished or neglected. The employees did not know the weights of

hay or grain that they fed Lily.

          {¶33} Last, Nelson called Politzer as a witness. Politzer testified that she was an

assistant trainer for Nelson at the time Lily was boarded at Nelson’s facility. Politzer

regularly worked with Lily in the gentling process two to three times per day. She also

observed Nelson working with Lily. Politzer stated that Lily probably lost some weight

while she was sick, but she regained the weight, and Politzer believed she looked

“wonderful.” Politzer also affirmed that she had never seen a horse malnourished,

neglected, or abused at Nelson’s facility. In her experience, older horses, such as Lily,

take longer to train.

          {¶34} Following Politzer’s testimony, Nelson rested.

          {¶35} In its July 21, 2025 judgment, the trial court concluded that there was

insufficient evidence that Lily did not receive the “training or nourishment that it ‘should

have had’ as to give rise to a breach of the contract or anything analogous to a ‘cruelty’

claim.”

          {¶36} In her second assigned error, Milton first argues that the trial court’s

conclusion that Nelson did not commit civil animal cruelty is against the weight of the

evidence because Nelson allowed Lily to lose a significant amount of weight during her

initial 30 days at Nelson’s facility, which Milton maintains amounted to torture.




                                         PAGE 10 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
       {¶37} However, there was no testimony establishing how much weight Lily lost in

the first thirty days of boarding at Nelson’s facility. Nelson testified that she believed Lily

lost muscle mass during this time when she was ill, as she would eat only hay, and she

rejected grain, alfalfa, and other products offered to her. Further, Milton testified that when

she visited Lily in August, she was not concerned about her weight. Based on this and

considering all record evidence presented, we cannot say that the trial court’s ruling on

this issue was against the weight of the evidence.

       {¶38} Next, with respect to the breach of contract claim, Milton argues that the

trial court erred in finding that Nelson sufficiently fed and trained Lily.

       {¶39} However, as set forth above, Nelson testified that Lily lost muscle mass due

to her illness, and she was offered additional food sources. Nelson and her witnesses

testified to Lily receiving food similar to the other horses once she had recovered, and

they had no concerns regarding Lily’s weight. The veterinarian who examined Lily on

November 12, 2024, scored her at a 4.5 on the Henneke scale with “mild muscle loss in

hind end.” In another portion of the veterinarian’s report, he indicated that Lily’s body

condition score was a 4, representing “mild to moderately thin.” However, that veterinarian

determined that she seemed to be in overall good health. Further, the Trumbull County

Humane Officer indicated that a score of 4.5 to 5 was considered “normal and ideal

according to [the Humane Society’s] scale,” which is the Henneke Body Condition Scoring

System.

       {¶40} With respect to training, as set forth above, the contract specifically made

no guarantees regarding training. Nelson indicated that she had informed Milton that Lily

would receive training at the horse’s own pace approximately 10 to 12 times per week.



                                        PAGE 11 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
Nelson and Politzer affirmed that she received this training. Based on the evidence

presented, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision in favor of Nelson on the breach

of contract claim was against the weight of the evidence.

       {¶41} Next, Milton further argues that she established damages with reasonable

certainty. However, as both of her claims failed, we need not reach this issue.

       {¶42} Accordingly, Milton’s second assigned error lacks merit.

       {¶43} In her first assigned error, Milton contends:

       {¶44} “The Trial Court erred by failing to transfer the case from the small claims

division to the regular municipal docket sua sponte when the issues presented required

complex testimony, contract interpretation, and application of statutory law.”

       {¶45} In her first assigned error, Milton argues that the trial court’s failure to sua

sponte transfer the case to the regular docket constituted an abuse of discretion. Milton

maintains that “[t]his proceeding required evaluation of veterinary evidence, contract and

statutory interpretation, and competing testimony about animal welfare standards—

issues far exceeding the simplified procedures of small claims, which is intended for

‘ordinary, uncomplicated’ disputes.”

       {¶46} However, Milton elected to file her complaint in the small claims division of

the trial court, and she sought damages in the amount of $6,000, the jurisdictional limit

for a small claims case.

       {¶47} Accordingly, Milton invited any error in this case being heard in the small

claims division. “‘The invited error doctrine precludes a litigant from taking advantage of

an error that he himself invited or induced.’” Cronin v. Cronin, 2012-Ohio-5592, ¶ 34 (11th

Dist.), quoting Perko v. Perko, 2003-Ohio-1877, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.). “A party who induces



                                       PAGE 12 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
error in the trial court cannot take advantage of such error on appeal.” (Citation omitted.)

State v. Watson, 2025-Ohio-515, ¶ 40 (11th Dist.).

       {¶48} Accordingly, because any error in this matter proceeding in the small claims

division was induced by Milton, her first assigned error lacks merit.

       {¶49} The judgment is affirmed.



JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.




                                      PAGE 13 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054
                                 JUDGMENT ENTRY



       For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error

are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Newton

Falls Municipal Court is affirmed.

       Costs to be taxed against appellant.




                                                 JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI



                                                  JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
                                                         concurs



                                                JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
                                                        concurs


           THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

    A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
              pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.




                                       PAGE 14 OF 14

Case No. 2025-T-0054