Millennia Hous. Mgt., Ltd. v. Withrow, 2013 Ohio 278

Millennia terminated Withrow’s Section 8 lease for an alleged tenancy violation and filed a forcible entry and detainer action seeking restitution of the premises.
The trial court restored Millennia to the premises and issued a writ of restitution to remove Withrow.
Withrow did not seek a stay of the trial court’s judgment.
The forcible entry and detainer action concerns immediate possession only and becomes moot once the landlord is restored.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot for lack of a stay or applicable exception to mootness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal moot due to no stay and restoration of possession?	Withrow argues continuing interest in federal housing eligibility sustains review.	Millennia argues mootness applies since possession was restored.	Appeal dismissed as moot.
Were notices to Withrow sufficiently specific?	Withrow argues notices lacked specificity.	Millennia argues mootness divests merits inquiry.	Appeal dismissed as moot.
Was the restitution order against weight of the evidence or law?	Withrow challenges restitution on merits.	Millennia defends against merits due to mootness.	Appeal dismissed as moot.

Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970) (duty to decide actual controversies; avoid abstract opinions)
Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 322 (2010-Ohio-6036) (authority on mootness and standing principles)
State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3 (1987) (reversible error to address moot questions; review limits)
Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910) (mootness when relief cannot be granted)
Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d 131 (1991) (mootness doctrine and exceptions)
Crossings Dev. Ltd. Partnership v. H.O.T., Inc., 96 Ohio App.3d 475 (1994) (mootness when landlord obtains possession; order may be moot)
Heritage Court, L.L.C. v. Merritt, 187 Ohio App.3d 117 (2010-Ohio-1711) (discussion of continuing interest in Section 8 tenant cases)