2023 Ohio 4039
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Fawley leased a Columbus apartment from Olentangy Commons, failed to pay March 2022 rent; landlord served a three-day notice to leave on March 7, 2022 and filed a forcible entry and detainer action March 21, 2022.
- Fawley moved to dismiss, arguing 15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1) (CARES Act) requires a lessor to give a tenant 30 days’ notice to vacate before filing an eviction action; Olentangy Commons did not timely oppose the motion.
- A magistrate and the municipal court rejected Fawley’s reading, concluding the statute only bars a court-ordered set-out during the 30-day period; the court granted restitution to Olentangy Commons.
- Fawley appealed; after she vacated at lease-end the landlord argued the appeal was moot; the court invoked the public-interest exception and reached the merits.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and held § 9058(c)(1) requires a lessor to provide a 30-day notice to vacate before filing a forcible entry and detainer action; it also held the statutory notice requirement affects jurisdiction over the particular case (not the municipal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction).
- The court reversed the municipal court’s judgment and remanded for factfinding on whether the property is a “covered dwelling unit” under § 9058.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olentangy Commons) | Defendant's Argument (Fawley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of § 9058(c)(1): when may lessor “require the tenant to vacate” | The statute only bars eviction (set-out) by court/law enforcement during 30 days after notice | Lessor may not initiate eviction proceedings — must give 30 days’ notice before filing | § 9058(c)(1) requires the lessor to give 30 days’ notice before filing an eviction action |
| Whether the CARES Act notice provision expired with the 120‑day moratorium | The notice requirement expired July 24, 2020 with the moratorium | The notice provision did not expire; it has independent effect | The notice provision did not expire; it remains operative after the moratorium |
| Jurisdictional effect of failing to give 30‑day notice | Defects in notice are not jurisdictional | Failure to give 30‑day notice deprives court of authority over that particular eviction | Failure to comply does not defeat municipal courts’ subject‑matter jurisdiction but does deprive the court of jurisdiction over that particular case (requiring dismissal/remedy) |
| Mootness of appeal | Appeal moot because tenant vacated at lease end | Public‑interest exception applies; issue affects many landlords/tenants | Public‑interest exception applied; court addressed merits despite vacancy |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (statutory interpretation; start with plain text)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (courts apply plain meaning when statute unambiguous)
- Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (presumption that statutes mean what they say)
- Lomax v. Ortiz‑Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (courts may not insert words Congress omitted)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (statute should be construed to give effect to all provisions)
- Midkiff v. Adams Cty. Regional Water Dist., 409 F.3d 758 (eviction process as exclusive legal method to recover possession)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (distinguishing subject‑matter jurisdiction from jurisdiction over a particular case)
- Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d 131 (mootness exceptions; public‑interest exception)
- Sherwood Auburn, L.L.C. v. Pinzon, 24 Wash. App.2d 664 (state appellate decision holding CARES Act notice requires 30 days’ notice before filing)