2015 Ohio 4584
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- CS/RW Westlake Indoor Storage, L.L.C. (plaintiff), via its sole member Robert Weeks, held a written five-year lease for premises at 27310 Detroit Road and operated a self-storage business.
- Weeks agreed to sell the business to Timothy Ely and allowed Ely/ Kesi, L.L.C. (defendants) to occupy and operate the business beginning January 1, 2011; defendants paid $1,500 toward an agreed purchase price but had not completed payment.
- Defendants occupied the premises, paid rent to the landlord, and admitted they had no written lease or sublease with Weeks or plaintiff and were not personally obligated for rent under plaintiff’s lease.
- After a dispute over the purchase price, plaintiff served a three-day notice to vacate and filed a forcible entry and detainer action in Rocky River Municipal Court; defendants filed a related suit in common pleas court over the sale and sought injunctive relief.
- The magistrate found for defendants, concluding the dispute was contractual (sale of the business) and not proper for forcible entry and detainer; the trial court adopted that decision and denied restitution.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the contractual dispute did not bar a forcible entry and detainer action and that plaintiff established a right to present possession while defendants lacked color of title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a collateral contractual dispute over sale of the business bars a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action | Contract dispute over purchase price is separate; FED is proper to recover present possession | The sale dispute is interwoven with possession and thus precludes FED | Court: Collateral contract dispute does not bar FED; FED concerns present possession only (reversed) |
| Whether plaintiff had the right to present possession and defendants occupied without color of title | Plaintiff holds the written lease and thus the right to present possession; defendants admitted no written instrument conveying title or lease | Defendants claimed ownership/control of the business and that the dispute over purchase prevented restitution | Court: Plaintiff has the right to present possession under the lease; defendants admitted no written instrument and therefore occupy without color of title (reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hass v. Gerski, 175 Ohio St. 327 (Ohio 1963) (forcible entry and detainer is a possessory action limited to present possession; pending title actions do not bar FED)
- Rubino v. Showalter, 24 Ohio App.3d 232 (Ohio App. 1985) (contract for sale of a business with lease assignment provision does not bar FED)
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1993) (trial court’s duty to independently review magistrate decisions under Civ.R. 53)
- Admr. of Veteran Affairs v. Jackson, 41 Ohio App.3d 274 (Ohio App. 1988) (FED statutes provide a summary remedy for restitution of possession)