2021 Ohio 2830
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Wallick Properties (landlord) and Mahdi Jama (tenant) had an agreed judgment entry resolving a lease termination dispute; the entry barred four named individuals from the premises and stated that if any appeared plaintiff could file for restitution by submitting a praecipe with a witness affidavit and a photograph of the unauthorized individual.
- On Feb. 21, 2020, Wallick filed a praecipe relying on a photo and affidavit; the municipal court granted restitution on Feb. 26, 2020. Jama moved to stay, and the parties resolved the dispute after the photo proved to be the tenant’s niece; the judgment was vacated and the agreed entry reinstated.
- On May 7, 2020, Wallick filed a second praecipe for immediate writ of restitution but did not file any photograph; it attached a purported affidavit dated May 5, 2020.
- The municipal court again granted judgment for restitution on May 13, 2020. Jama appealed, arguing Wallick failed to comply with the agreed-entry evidentiary requirements (photo and a valid affidavit by a witness with knowledge).
- The court of appeals found the praecipe lacked the required photograph and that the submitted affidavit was defective: the affiant was unidentified, the notarization did not show a jurat (no oath), and the affiant lacked personal, first-hand knowledge. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the restitution judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could grant restitution without a photograph required by the agreed judgment | Wallick: compliance satisfied because defense counsel had received the photo and technical non-filing was harmless | Jama: agreed entry required filing the photograph with the court; without it court could not evaluate the alleged violation | Court: Reversed — absence of the photograph before the court violated the agreed-entry requirement and prejudiced defendant |
| Whether the court could rely on the submitted affidavit to support restitution | Wallick: affidavit complied in spirit and defects were harmless; would have shown breach | Jama: affidavit was not a sworn jurat, affiant was unidentified and lacked personal knowledge, so it was not a competent affidavit | Court: Reversed — affidavit did not meet statutory/notarial requirements nor show personal knowledge; it could not support restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental W. Condominium Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 501 (Ohio 1996) (contract/agreed-judgment interpretation standard)
- State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn. v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 315 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review limited to the trial-court record)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234 (Ohio 2004) (notarial acts and the necessity of jurat/acknowledgement distinctions for affidavits)
- Stern v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 14 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1968) (distinguishing jurat and acknowledgement requirements)
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 2002) (personal-knowledge requirement for testimony and affidavits)