Sacksteder v. Gisslen
968 N.E.2d 11
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Gisslen and his wife were month-to-month tenants of Sacksteder’s residential property from 2003 to 2008; Sacksteder also resided there part of the time.
- Sacksteder served a 30-day notice on February 1, 2008 to terminate the tenancy, followed by a 3-day notice to vacate on March 4, 2008; the Gisslens did not leave.
- Peters (Sacksteder’s successor in interest) filed forcible entry and detainer; a magistrate ruled in Sacksteder’s favor, and Gisslen vacated on May 16, 2008; Peters obtained a writ of execution and had some property removed.
- The municipal court later sustained Gisslen’s objection that the notice was insufficient, dismissed the forcible-entry action, and the matter was certified to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas because Gisslen’s counterclaims exceeded the municipal court’s monetary jurisdiction.
- The common pleas court granted Peters summary judgment on five counterclaims; on appeal, the court addressed challenges to three counterclaims and held the second and fourth counterclaims warranted reversal and remand, while other aspects remained affirmed.
- Gisslen’s third counterclaim argued for unjust enrichment based on improvements he made with Sacksteder’s knowledge; Peters moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavits, and the court considered Civ.R. 56 standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether Peters violated RC 5321.15(A) by actions unlawful to recover possession | Gisslen | Gisslen | Overruled |
| whether the punitive standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress applies to RC 2307.50 claim | Gisslen | Peters | Sustained (trial court error) |
| whether Peters’ affidavit established lack of agreement on improvements for unjust enrichment | Gisslen | Peters | Sustained (summary judgment improper) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (burden on moving party in summary judgment; record view favorable to nonmoving party)
- Morris v. First Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 21 Ohio St.2d 25 (Ohio 1970) (summary judgment standard; view most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326 (Ohio 1992) (de novo review of legal issues on appeal from summary judgment)
- Nilavar v. Osborn, 127 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio App.3d 1998) (appellate standard for reviewing summary judgment; review of record in light most favorable)
- Brown v. Denny, 72 Ohio App.3d 417 (Ohio App. 1991) (outrageous conduct standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1983) (outrageous conduct standard applied to related tort claims)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (duty to prove lack of agreement in unjust enrichment context)
- Freedline v. Cielensky, 115 Ohio App. 138 (Ohio App. 1961) (tenants generally not obligated to repair at landlord’s expense absent agreement)
- Univ. Hospitals of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2002) (constructive trust concepts in unjust enrichment restitution)