Front St. Bldg. Co., L.L.C. v. Davis
2016 Ohio 7412
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Front Street sued James Davis in Dayton Municipal Court (forcible entry and detainer) after serving a 3-day notice to pay or quit; complaint sought restitution and unpaid rent/holdover damages.
- Parties had a month-to-month rental agreement beginning December 2015; Front Street alleged unpaid rent for Dec.–Feb.; Lundin (manager) affidavit supported default.
- At the hearing Davis appeared pro se, disputed owing rent, challenged the court’s jurisdiction (calling it a "private company"), and filed counterclaims and third‑party claims alleging unfair/deceptive practices and conspiracy.
- The municipal court granted restitution, issued a writ of restitution, and ordered eviction; the court later transferred counterclaims exceeding municipal jurisdiction to the Common Pleas Court.
- Davis appealed but did not obtain a stay of execution or post a supersedeas bond under R.C. 1923.14; the appellate court held the appeal moot because Davis had been evicted and had not preserved possession on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal court had jurisdiction to decide forcible detainer | Court is a proper municipal court; statutory procedures satisfied | Court is a "private company" and thus lacks constitutional jurisdiction | Municipal court jurisdiction upheld; dismissal of jurisdictional challenge (court considered and denied it) |
| Whether forcible detainer action becomes moot after landlord regains possession | Forcible detainer only adjudicates right to immediate possession; restoration renders action moot | Appeal not moot because Davis seeks to repossess tenancy and damages | Appeal is moot: once landlord restored to premises, no further relief is available absent stay/bond under R.C. 1923.14 |
| Whether counterclaims/cross‑claims must prevent restitution or require transfer | Forcible detainer can proceed separately; counterclaims exceeding monetary jurisdiction should be transferred | Counterclaims raise business torts tied to eviction and should be adjudicated here | Court may separate forcible detainer from monetary claims; counterclaims exceeding municipal limit transferred to Common Pleas |
| Whether exceptions to mootness apply (e.g., capable of repetition or public interest) | Not raised by plaintiff | Davis contended numerous errors justify relief | No exception applied; appeal dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Seventh Urban, Inc. v. University Circle, 67 Ohio St.2d 19 (Ohio 1981) (forcible entry and detainer determines right to immediate possession and nothing else)
- Miele v. Ribovich, 90 Ohio St.3d 439 (Ohio 2000) (forcible detainer is an expedited mechanism to recover possession)
- Colonial American Dev. Co. v. Griffith, 48 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1989) (defendant must seek stay and post supersedeas bond under statute to preserve possession on appeal)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co. v. Barnes, 38 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 1988) (exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1987) (public‑interest or debatable constitutional issues may allow review of otherwise moot matters)