Tillimon v. Timmons
2016 Ohio 7424
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Landlord Duane Tillimon leased 4445 Woodmont Rd. to Julie Good and Catherine Bernhofter (lease through Aug. 31, 2016). They vacated early but remained on the original lease.\
- Good’s son, David Timmons, entered a separate lease with Tillimon on Nov. 1, 2013; the original lease was not terminated and the leases did not reference each other.\
- Tillimon sued Good, Bernhofter, and Timmons for forcible entry and detainer and damages (unpaid rent, repairs, cleaning, utilities); Good and Bernhofter defaulted and a damages judgment for $9,644.57 was entered against them.\
- Timmons contested damages, moved for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel from Tillimon’s prior default proceeding; the trial court denied the motion and later dismissed Tillimon’s claim against Timmons on judicial estoppel grounds after a bench trial.\
- On appeal, the Sixth District affirmed the eviction/damages judgment to Good and Bernhofter but reversed the trial court’s application of judicial estoppel to bar the claim against Timmons, instead dismissing Tillimon’s statutory tenant-based claim against Timmons because Timmons was not a “tenant” under R.C. 5321.01(A).\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tillimon) | Defendant's Argument (Timmons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel barred Tillimon from pursuing damages against Timmons after obtaining a default judgment against Good/Bernhofter | Tillimon asserted the leases ran concurrently and all defendants are jointly/severally liable; he did not take an inconsistent sworn position | Timmons argued Tillimon used the same evidence to attribute damages to Good/Bernhofter in the default proceeding and later blamed Timmons, so judicial estoppel should apply | Court: Judicial estoppel did not apply because Tillimon’s affidavit did not unequivocally state Good/Bernhofter caused the damages; Tillimon consistently sought joint liability under concurrent leases |
| Whether Timmons is liable under R.C. 5321.05 as a violating tenant | Tillimon contended Timmons was a tenant under his separate lease and thus liable for tenant obligations and damages | Timmons argued he was not an original tenant under the first lease and liability cannot be imposed as a tenant under R.C. 5321.05 | Court: Timmons is not a “tenant” under R.C. 5321.01(A) because Tillimon had already granted exclusive possession to Good/Bernhofter; therefore the R.C. 5321.05 claim fails |
| Whether judgment against Timmons should be joint and several with the judgment against Good/Bernhofter | Tillimon sought joint and several liability for the same damages awarded against Good/Bernhofter | Timmons argued separate leases and lack of joint legal relationship preclude joint and several liability; also relied on judicial estoppel | Court: Because Timmons cannot be held under R.C. 5321.05 as a tenant, the claim for joint and several liability under that statute fails |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were against manifest weight of the evidence | Tillimon argued the evidence showed concurrent leases and Timmons caused damages | Timmons argued evidence supported that damages preexisted or were unrelated, and that Tillimon relied on prior judgment | Court: Affirmed trial outcome on different ground — dismissal of statutory tenant claim — and found no reversible error in result |
Key Cases Cited
- Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 (2007) (defines judicial estoppel elements)\
- State ex rel. Motor Carrier Serv. v. Rankin, 135 Ohio St.3d 395 (2013) (reiterates judicial estoppel standards)\
- Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (1990) (reviewing court may affirm for any correct reason)\
- Pitts v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, 160 Ohio St. 129 (1953) (lease confers exclusive right of possession)