Am. Servicing Corp. v. Wannemacher
19 N.E.3d 566
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- American Servicing contracted March 6, 2013 to manage a property at 145 Truax Road, Cloverdale, Ohio, with rent of $244.87 per month for 36 months.
- The contract amortized to a $22,800 purchase price over 180 payments at 9.99% interest, with an attached amortization schedule.
- Wannemacher was responsible for interior/exterior maintenance, insurance, and property taxes; failure to pay rent, taxes, or insurance >30 days allowed American Servicing to reenter and repossess.
- The contract offered an option to purchase for $22,800; otherwise a balloon payment of $20,499.81 due at the end of 36 months, with conveyance by general warranty deed if paid.
- If Wannemacher could not pay the balloon, American Servicing could reenter and terminate the lease.
- Wannemacher paid April–July 2013 on time and August 2013 was returned for insufficient funds; September payment was remitted, but late by August, leading to a termination notice posted September 5, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract is a land installment contract or a lease with option to purchase. | American Servicing argues it is a lease with option to purchase. | Wannemacher contends it is a land installment contract or lease with option to purchase? (as argued by parties’ positions in the record). | Contract is a land installment contract; not a lease with option to purchase. |
| Whether the 5313.06 notice satisfies 5313.08 forfeiture requirements. | American Servicing asserts proper notice under 5313.06 supports forfeiture under 5313.08. | Wannemacher challenges sufficiency of notice and forfeiture procedure. | Not satisfied; dismissal affirmed for lack of proper notice under 5313.06, depriving jurisdiction to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reinhart v. Fostoria Plumbing, Heating & Elec. Supply, Inc., 2010-Ohio-4825 (3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-10-08, 2010-Ohio-4825) (apply contract-interpretation principles; intent controls when unambiguous)
- Judson v. Lyendecker, 2013-Ohio-1060 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-615, 2013-Ohio-1060) (distinguishes land installment contracts vs. option contracts; implicit intent)
- Fadelsak v. Hagley, 2003-Ohio-3413 (4th Dist. Lawrence No. 02CA41, 2003-Ohio-3413) (six factors for intent; examines lease vs. land installment contract)
- Riverside Builders, Inc. v. Bowers, 1990 WL 75433 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 89AP-834, 1990 WL 75433) (definition distinguishing land installment from lease with option)
- Barhorst, Inc. v. Hanson Pipe & Prods. Ohio, Inc., 169 Ohio App.3d 778 (3d Dist., 2006-Ohio-6858) (statutory interpretation deference to unambiguous language)