Phillips v. ThompsonPhillips v. Thompson
Dated: December 22, 2021
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{1} Defendants-Appellants Shirley Thompson and Juli Hiner appeal the judgment of the Akron Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{2} On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff-Appelleе Kimberly Phillips, Agent for Schaaf Ellet LLC, doing business as Ellet Mobile Home Park LLC (“Ellet MHP“), filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer. Ellet MHP sought process and restitution but not damages. Ellet MHP alleged that Ms. Thompson, Ms. Hiner, and Defendants Dennis Hinkle and all other occupants failed to pay rent, violated park rules, and failed to register a park occupant. The record reflects that service was effectuated via the method set forth in
{3} On December 27, 2019, the magistrate issued a decision ordering that a writ be allowed, and the case be concluded because there was no second cause of action. In so doing, the magistrate found that there was a failure to pay rent as well as violations of the lease and park rules. The trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision and entered judgmеnt that same day.
{4} On January 6, 2020, Ms. Hiner filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision and a motion to stay the eviction proceedings pending the ruling on the objections. The trial court granted the motion. On January 10, 2020, Ms. Thompson and Ms. Hiner filed an answer and counterclaims. The counterclaims asserted violations of the Ohio Mobile Home Park Statute, breach of contract, retaliation in violation of
{5} On February 21, 2020, Ellet MHP filed a motion to strike the counterclaims pursuant to
{6} On March 4, 2020, the trial court overruled Ms. Hiner‘s objections and thereafter a writ of restitution was issued. On March 5, 2020, Ellet MHP filed an answer to the counterclaims and asserted that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked jurisdiction over Ellet MHP, and that the counterclaims failed to state a claim. Ellet MHP also pointed to its motion to strike. Thus, Ellet MHP sought dismissal of the counterclaims. On April 21, 2020, thе trial court granted the motion to strike the counterclaims.
{7} Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson filed a notice of appeal only appealing the April 21, 2020 entry striking their counterclaims. They have raised a single assignment of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN STRIKING APPELLANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM.
{8} Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson assert in their sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Ellеt MHP‘s motion to strike. Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson argue that
{9}
{10} Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson point to State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 75 Ohio St.3d 12 (1996) for the proposition that a
{11} While Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson are correсt that “[a] counterclaim may be interposed in any action in forcible entry and detainer, as authorized by
{12} “The underlying purpose behind the forcible entry and detainer action is to provide a summary, extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of [the] possession of real estate in the cases especially enumerated by statute.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State ex rel. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Callahan, 45 Ohio St.3d 51, 55 (1989). Thus, ”
{13} In fact, “[i]n a forcible entry and detainer action, the only pleading contemplated by the statute is thе complaint. No answer is provided for or required.” (Internal quotations and citation omitted.) Greene Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Newsome, 2d Dist. Greene No. 93-CA-84, 1994 WL 247188, *2 (June 8, 1994). This is not to say that a defendant is precluded from filing an answer, see id., or counterclaim. See Jemo Assocs., Inc. at paragraph one of the syllabus;
{14} Here, Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson did not file an answer and counterclaim until after the trial court entered judgment on the sole cause оf action before it, which involved a summary proceeding. Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson have not pointed to anything in the record indicating that they moved the trial court for lеave to file an answer and counterclaim or informed the trial court that they intended to do so prior to filing the answer and counterclaim after judgment was entered.
{15} Further, Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson have cited to no authority authorizing the filing of a counterclaim after the trial court has entered judgment on the sole cause of аction before it; let alone authority indicating the same is appropriate when that sole cause of action must be resolved in a summary proceeding. While objections were pending when Ms. Hiner and Ms. Thompson filed their counterclaims, it does not change the fact that judgment had been
{16} Accordingly, even if the trial court committed an error in utilizing
{17} Ms. Hiner‘s and Ms. Thompson‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{18} Ms. Hiner‘s and Ms. Thompson‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Akron Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Akron Municipal Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellants.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
TEODOSIO, J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
LAURA K. MCDOWALL, Attorney at Law, for Appellants.
JOHN F. MYERS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.