Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
Appeal from Municipal Court Trial Court Case No. 17-CVG-2078
DERRICK STRAHORN, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.
LAVEY, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.
1} The trial court granted Kettering Square
Apartments (KSA) restitution of the apartment in which
Marshie Crawford lives, because she violated her lease.
Crawford has appealed several of the court's entries.
Finding no error in any of them, we affirm them all.
2} On November 23, 2016, KSA served Crawford, who
lives in a federally subsidized apartment, with a 30-day
notice of termination of her lease. The notice states that
she breached her lease by failing to maintain her apartment
in a safe and sanitary condition. According to the notice,
earlier that year, on May 19 her apartment failed a
housekeeping inspection. A letter delivered on May 27
explained why it failed and gave a date for reinspection. A
month later, on June 27, the apartment was again inspected
and again failed. On September 1, Crawford's attorney
sent KSA a letter stating that Crawford is disabled and
asking that it give her a "reasonable accommodation in
the form of a two-week extension of time to address any
failed inspection items." KSA did not respond to the
letter or talk to Crawford about her request. However it was
not until almost four months later, on December 27, KSA
served Crawford a 10-day notice of termination, and then on
January 9, 2017, it served her a 3-day notice of termination.
Crawford did not leave. On January 19, KSA filed a complaint
for forcible entry and detainer against her, asking for
restitution of the premises. On March 14, after a hearing, a
magistrate issued a decision granting restitution. The same
day, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision
and entered a writ of restitution ordering Crawford to vacate
her apartment by March 23.
3} Three days after the trial court granted
restitution, Crawford filed objections to the
magistrate's decision and a motion to stay execution
pending a ruling on the objections. She also filed a praecipe
for preparation of a transcript of the magistrate's
hearing and a motion to supplement objections when the
transcript is filed. On March 20, the trial court overruled
the motion to stay, saying that a stay may be granted only
after an appeal is filed. The next day, March 21, Crawford
appealed this ruling. The day after that, March 22, the trial
court stayed execution of the writ of restitution, stating
that the filing of the appeal "now puts [Crawford's]
request for stay properly before this Court for a decision on
the merits on the motion for stay." The court also
overruled Crawford's objections, though it did so
"not on the merits of the objections, but on the basis
that in a forcible entry and detainer action objections are
not the proper method to challenge the issuance of the writ
of restitution. A direct appeal is the proper method to
challenge that decision." On April 5, the trial court
granted Crawford's motion to stay, pending the underlying
appeal, and ordered her to post a use and occupancy bond. A
week later, on April 13, Crawford filed a notice of appeal
from the March 14 judgment granting restitution and she filed
a notice of appeal from the March 22 entry overruling her
4} All three of Crawford's appeals are before us
now. KSA has not filed a brief in any of the appeals.
Appeal of the March 20 entry overruling the motion for
5} Crawford's first appeal is from the trial
court's March 20 judgment overruling her motion for a
stay pending objections. The sole assignment of error
contends that the trial court erred by overruling this
motion. The court ultimately did grant Crawford's motion
for a stay pending this appeal on April 5. Consequently the
question whether the court erred by not doing so is moot.
6} The sole assignment of error for that appeal is
Appeal of the March 22 entry overruling objections
7} Crawford assigns two errors to that part of the
March 22 entry overruling her objections. The first
assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred by
concluding that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not
apply to forcible entry and detainer proceedings. And the
second assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred
by concluding that filing objections to ...