2021 Ohio 4500
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Landlord (Ellet MHP) filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint on Dec. 10, 2019, alleging nonpayment of rent, lease/park-rule violations, and failure to register an occupant.
- Service was effected; a magistrate hearing occurred Dec. 26, 2019; on Dec. 27 the magistrate found for the landlord and ordered a writ of restitution, and the trial court adopted that decision the same day.
- Appellant Hiner filed objections and a stay Jan. 6, 2020; Hiner and Thompson filed an answer and multiple counterclaims (statutory violations, breach, retaliation, IIED) on Jan. 10, after judgment had been entered.
- Landlord moved to strike the counterclaims under Civ.R. 12(F); the trial court overruled the objections, issued the writ, and on Apr. 21, 2020 granted the motion to strike the counterclaims.
- Appellants appealed only the April 21 order striking their counterclaims, arguing the court abused its discretion by using Civ.R. 12(F) to strike the entire pleading and by denying their right to assert counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking appellants' counterclaims under Civ.R. 12(F) | Ellet MHP: counterclaims were filed after judgment in a summary forcible-entry-and-detainer proceeding, were untimely and improper; 12(F) or dismissal appropriate | Hiner/Thompson: 12(F) should not be used to attack an entire pleading; they had a right to interpose counterclaims | Court affirmed: even if 12(F) was not the ideal procedural vehicle, striking/dismissing was not reversible because counterclaims were untimely and improper after judgment in a summary proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 75 Ohio St.3d 12 (1996) (Civ.R.12(F) should attack discrete insufficient claims, not substitute for 12(B)(6), but misdesignation is not reversible if sufficiency is shown)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Jemo Assocs., Inc. v. Garman, 70 Ohio St.2d 267 (1982) (counterclaims may be interposed in forcible-entry-and-detainer actions in some circumstances)
- State ex rel. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Callahan, 45 Ohio St.3d 51 (1989) (forcible-entry-and-detainer is a summary, extraordinary, speedy remedy; Civil Rules inapplicable where they frustrate that purpose)
- Forney v. Climbing Higher Ents., Inc., 158 Ohio App.3d 338 (2004) (discussing limits on applying Civ.R.13 in forcible-entry-and-detainer contexts)
- Haney v. Roberts, 130 Ohio App.3d 293 (1998) (same: Civ.R.13(A) generally does not apply unless plaintiff joins another action)