2018 Ohio 2312
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Landlord Kristin Dixon sued tenant Tiffany Anderson in June 2017 for forcible-entry-and-detainer and money damages.
- Matter proceeded to a magistrate; magistrate recommended a writ of restitution despite Anderson testifying she planned to vacate by June 30.
- Magistrate stayed the writ contingent on Anderson posting bond by July 5; on July 5 Anderson’s counsel filed a notice of return of possession stating Anderson had vacated the premises.
- Dixon did not respond to the notice; the trial court nonetheless issued a writ of restitution on July 13.
- Anderson appealed, arguing the writ was erroneous because she had vacated before the writ issued, rendering the forcible-entry-and-detainer claim moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a forcible-entry-and-detainer claim remains justiciable after the tenant vacates the premises | Dixon sought a writ of restitution to regain possession | Anderson argued the claim was moot because she had already returned possession | The court held the claim was moot once tenant vacated and possession was restored; writ was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Jackson, 67 Ohio St.2d 129 (Ohio 1981) (Civ.R. 54(B) inapplicability in forcible-entry-and-detainer proceedings supports final appealability of restitution orders)
- Schwab v. Lattimore, 166 Ohio App.3d 12 (1st Dist. 2006) (forcible-entry-and-detainer actions decide only right to immediate possession; claim becomes moot if tenant vacates)
- Allison v. Braunlin, 113 Ohio App. 511 (10th Dist. 1961) (vacatur by tenant renders restitution issue moot)
- Crossings Dev. Ltd. Partnership v. H.O.T., Inc., 96 Ohio App.3d 475 (9th Dist. 1994) (same principle: eviction actions are limited to immediate possession)