M-N North Chase II, L.L.C. v. Rowe, 2011 Ohio 4071

M-N North Chase II LLC sued Kenneth Rowe for unpaid rent after Rowe vacated before lease expiration.
Rowe claimed he was released from the lease under a letter from the leasor and moved out after meeting conditions.
North Chase served Rowe with discovery requests, including requests for admissions, with a 28-day response deadline.
The municipal court granted summary judgment to North Chase, deeming admissions admitted, and awarded eight months' rent plus late fees.
Rowe did not receive an opportunity to respond to the filed summary judgment motion before it was ruled on.
The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court violated due process and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court violate due process by granting summary judgment without allowing a response?	Rowe argues he should have had a chance to respond to the motion.	North Chase contends leave to file the motion was granted and Rowe had a response opportunity otherwise.	Yes; due process violation; judgment reversed and remanded.

Village of Harbor View v. Jones, 2010-Ohio-6533 (10th Dist. Nos. 10AP-356, 10AP-357, 2010) (summary judgment requires opportunity to respond)
State ex rel. Thernes v. United Local Sch. Bd. Dist. of Educ., 2008-Ohio-6922 (7th Dist. No. 07 CO 445, 2008) (due process considerations in adjudication)
Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins. Co., 100 Ohio St. 3d 8 (2003-Ohio-4829) (procedural fairness in summary judgment)
Capital One Bank v. Toney, 2007-Ohio-1571 (7th Dist. No. 06 JE 28, 2007) (moving party must file with leave; response window for nonmovant)