E.G. Licata, L.L.C. v. E.G.L., Inc.
2017 Ohio 5840
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- EGL operated a sexually oriented business at commercial premises owned by Licata for over 30 years under a long-term lease.
- In 2015 EGL stopped paying full rent, submitting reduced payments claiming Licata failed to make necessary repairs; the lease required EGL to perform and pay for desired repairs.
- Licata sued in Toledo Municipal Court for unpaid contractual rent (filed April 29, 2016).
- On September 20, 2016 the trial court ordered EGL to deposit past-due rent and property taxes into an escrow account within one week.
- At an October 6, 2016 pretrial conference EGL told the court it would not comply with the escrow order; the court found EGL in contempt and imposed a coercive fine until compliance.
- EGL appealed, arguing (1) the contempt finding violated R.C. 2705.03 notice requirements and (2) the escrow order was unlawful because R.C. 1923 does not apply to commercial property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt finding violated R.C. 2705.03 notice requirements | EGL: trial court failed to follow R.C. 2705.03 for contempt, denying due process | Licata: contempt was for conduct in court; R.C. 2705.03 inapplicable | Court: Conduct was direct contempt; summary punishment permitted; R.C. 2705.03 not required; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court had authority to order escrow of past-due rent and taxes | EGL: R.C. 1923 escrow provisions do not apply to commercial property, so escrow order was unlawful | Licata: Ohio precedent applies R.C. 1923 to commercial properties | Court: R.C. 1923 applies to commercial property (citing precedent); escrow order lawful; contempt finding stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Contempt of Heffernan, 177 Ohio App.3d 499 (Ohio App. 2008) (distinguishes direct contempt from indirect contempt)
- Craig Wrecking Co. v. S.G. Loewendick & Sons, Inc., 38 Ohio App.3d 79 (Ohio App. 1987) (holds R.C. 1923 escrow provisions apply to commercial property)