Alexander v. MHL Ltd., 2012 Ohio 4046

Alexander v. MHL Ltd. is an appeal in the First Appellate District of Ohio from a Hamilton County landlord-tenant dispute involving deposits and a counterclaim for damages.
Alexander sought return of a $500 security deposit and a $100 pet deposit; MHL counterclaimed for apartment damages.
A magistrate recommended judgment for Alexander on his claim and for MHL on its counterclaim, with attorney fees awarded to Alexander; the trial court later entered conflicting judgments and referred to Bittner factors.
Following this court’s Alexander I decision, the trial court awarded $1,144 in damages and $875 in attorney fees, then remitted for Bittner-based calculation; subsequent entries remained inconsistent.
After remand in Alexander II, the trial court awarded Alexander substantial attorney fees; MHL objected, and the matter proceeded to appeal.
Alexander filed a satisfaction and release of judgment after a stipulated entry directed release of funds; this led the court to treat the second appeal as moot under Blodgett v. Blodgett.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness due to satisfaction and release	Alexander contends the appeal should be moot only if satisfaction terminates the dispute.	MHL argues the satisfaction triggers mootness and the appeal should be dismissed.	Appeals are moot; dismissal affirmed.

Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (1990) (satisfaction of judgment ends the appeal)
Rauch v. Noble, 169 Ohio St. 314 (1959) (judgment paid and satisfied terminates controversy)