Lake Metro. Hous. v. McFadden
2017 Ohio 2598
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Lake Metropolitan Housing Authority (Lake) leased a subsidized apartment to Alan McFadden under a lease requiring annual recertification of income/family status.
- McFadden missed recertification appointments on July 13 and July 19, 2016 despite written notices warning termination; Lake sent a 30-day cure notice and then a termination/three-day vacate notice after he did not cure.
- Lake filed forcible entry and detainer (eviction) and damages claims August 30, 2016; eviction hearing occurred September 15, 2016, and was continued to September 22, 2016 with an ordered third recertification date of September 19.
- McFadden failed to attend the September 19 recertification; on September 22 the trial court granted restitution (possession) to Lake and left the damages claim pending; McFadden’s motion to stay was denied.
- McFadden appealed pro se but did not identify assignments of error, failed to include required briefing components, attached documents not in the record, and did not file a transcript of the hearing.
- Lake later informed the appellate court that it regained possession (McFadden was evicted November 7, 2016); the court found the eviction appeal moot, affirmed the restitution judgment, and explained why the pending damages claim did not defeat finality of the possession judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lake) | Defendant's Argument (McFadden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of eviction appeal | Eviction moot because Lake restored to possession; no further relief available | Appeal should proceed despite eviction | Appeal moot; affirm restitution judgment |
| Finality when damages claim pending | Restitution judgment is final for possession; joinder statute preserves summary nature | Pending damages claim prevents final appeal | Judgment for possession is final and appealable; Civ.R.54(B) inapplicable to eviction summary proceedings |
| Adequacy of appellant brief | Appellant failed to comply with App.R.16; court may disregard conclusory arguments | Argued multiple substantive defects below (untimely notices, due process, etc.) | Court may disregard noncompliant brief; procedural failures justify affirmance |
| Omission of hearing transcript and extra-record documents | Transcript necessary to show error; absent transcript, appellate court must presume trial court correctness; extrinsic exhibits struck | Claims about trial errors rely on omitted transcript and attached documents | Court struck non-record exhibits, treated lack of transcript as fatal, and affirmed trial court proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Seventh Urban, Inc. v. University Circle Property Dev., 67 Ohio St.2d 19 (state supreme court) (forcible entry and detainer determines immediate possession only)
- Witkowski v. Arditi, 123 Ohio App.3d 26 (7th Dist.) (appeal becomes moot when tenant vacates after filing appeal)
- Smith v. Wright, 65 Ohio App.2d 101 (8th Dist.) (Civ.R.54(B) is clearly inapplicable to forcible entry and detainer; eviction proceedings remain summary)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears duty to provide transcript; absent portions require presumption of regularity)