Holtz v. Gray

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Perry County Municipal Court’s judgment granting Martha Holtz restitution of premises occupied by Daniel Gray. The court held that Gray failed to provide transcripts necessary to review most of his assignments of error and therefore presumed the regularity of the lower-court proceedings. The court also rejected Gray’s challenge to the writ of restitution as stale or improperly issued.

Holdings

1. When an appellant fails to provide transcripts necessary to resolve assigned errors, the reviewing court presumes the regularity and validity of the proceedings below and affirms.
2. The record showed that Holtz provided the three-day notice required by R.C. 1923.04 and that the notice contained the language mandated by the statute; R.C. 5321.03 authorized the landlord to bring an action for possession when the tenant was in default in paying rent.
3. The trial court did not improperly issue or serve a stale notice or writ because the magistrate issued the writ of restitution on March 17, 2025, and the trial court later adopted and incorporated the magistrate's decision while ordering Gray's immediate removal on May 23, 2025.
4. An appellate court may not consider new evidence or factual material that was not before the trial court when it entered the judgment under review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the municipal court erred in overruling Gray's objections and motion to dismiss based on alleged noncompliance with Ohio eviction and manufactured-home-park statutes.
2. Whether the municipal court erred in rejecting Gray's arguments concerning disability accommodations, breach of oral contract, alleged violations of R.C. Chapter 4781, and other statutory and federal-law claims.
3. Whether the municipal court improperly issued or served a stale eviction notice or writ of restitution.
4. Whether the appellate court could consider factual material submitted for the first time with Gray's appellate brief.

Disposition

affirmed