Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
GREGORY A. JONES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
KARL DLUGOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from Rocky River Municipal Court Case No. 18 CVG 549
Vincent Esquire, Ltd., Paul W. Vincent, and Adam James
Vincent, for appellees.
Dlugos, pro se, and Lisa Gottschalt, pro se.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
1} In this accelerated appeal,  the
defendants-appellants Karl Dlugos and Lisa
Gottschalt appeal from the March 26, 2018 judgment of
the Rocky River Municipal Court, which "accepted,
approved and adopted" the magistrate's decision. The
decision found the appellants liable for nonpayment of rent.
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.
and Procedural History
2} The record before us demonstrates that in
February 2017, the appellants entered into a land installment
contract with the plaintiffs-appellees, Gregory and Sharon
Jones. The contract was for property located in North
Olmsted, Ohio, and the monthly payment was $772.64, plus a
$50 late fee, if applicable.
3} In February 2018, the appellants failed to make
payments according to the contract, and the appellees
provided notice to them of their breach and how it could be
remedied according to the terms of their contract. On March
5, 2018, the appellants made a $500 payment. On March 7,
2018, the appellees filed an action in the Rocky River
Municipal Court; the complaint was for forcible entry and
detainer and forfeiture. The appellants filed an answer in
which they claimed, in part, that the appellees accepted
their $500 payment.
4} A trial before the magistrate was held on March
26, 2018. At the conclusion of the trial, the magistrate
found in favor of the appellees and against the appellants
for nonpayment of rent on the "first cause of
action," that is, the forcible entry and detainer. The
magistrate granted the appellants until April 16, 2018, to
move to plead or file an answer as to the "second cause
of action," that is, the forfeiture. The trial court
"accepted, approved and adopted" the
magistrate's decision as the judgment of the court.
5} On April 2, 2018, appellants filed a motion to
stay eviction, which was denied on April 5. A writ of
restitution was filed, ordering that the appellants be
"forthwith removed" from the property and the
appellees have restitution of it. Appellants apparently did
not vacate the property, and therefore the appellees filed a
request to execute writ of restitution. The appellants filed
a motion to set aside the magistrate's order and stay the
writ of restitution, which the trial court denied.
Thereafter, the appellants filed objections to the
magistrate's order; the objections were overruled.
6} On April 13, 2018, appellants filed an answer to
the second cause of the complaint and a counterclaim. Their
counterclaim sought an amount for equity they claim to have
in the house.
7} According to the appellees, the appellants were
ordered to be out of the subject property on April 13, 2018.
However, due to the trial court's schedule, the date was
continued one week, until April 20, 2018. The record
demonstrates that on April 19, 2018, appellants filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy that resulted in an automatic stay of
8} The bankruptcy stay was lifted in August 2018,
and the eviction proceedings resumed. On October 4, 2018, the
day set for their eviction, appellants filed an emergency
motion for stay of eviction in this court; they also filed an
appeal in this court of the municipal court's March 2018
judgment that again stayed the eviction date. Their emergency
motion was denied on the same day it was filed, October 4,
2018. The appellants then filed a second notice of appeal on
October 5, 2018, that was transferred to the first appeal.
Meanwhile, the eviction proceeded and the appellants were
evicted in October 2018, and the property was restored to the
9} This court dismissed the appeal as untimely, but
subsequently granted appellants' motion for
reconsideration and ordered appellants to file an App.R. 9(C)
statement by November 26, 2018. On November 23, 2018,
appellants filed a "notice of trial court's
inability to settle ...