Grant-Ross v. Dunsmore

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals reviewed a forcible entry and detainer action arising from a disputed real estate sale and payment by cashier’s check. The court held that the municipal court had jurisdiction to determine present possession and, incidentally, title, affirmed judgment for the seller, and modified the judgment by invalidating the nunc pro tunc language and striking an improper directive concerning recording possession with the county auditor. A dissent would have reversed and remanded, reasoning that the municipal court improperly resolved ownership and title disputes beyond the scope of a forcible entry and detainer proceeding.

Holdings

1. A municipal court has subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 1901.18(A)(8) to hear a forcible entry and detainer action and may determine which party has the right to present possession. When possession depends on title, the municipal court may determine in whom present title rests as an incident to deciding possession, but the proceeding is not an independent quiet-title action.
2. The trial court did not improperly rely on new evidence because the seller did not introduce new evidence through her objections; her position that she had not received the required consideration and that the deed was invalid had been consistently presented.
3. The nunc pro tunc judgment was invalid because it purported to amend and correct the original judgment rather than merely record judicial action previously and actually taken.
4. The municipal court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering appellee to record transfer of possession with the Lucas County Auditor, and that sentence had to be stricken from the final judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the municipal court had subject-matter jurisdiction in a forcible entry and detainer action to determine which party had the right to present possession and, incidentally, which party held present title.
2. Whether the trial court improperly relied on new evidence presented in objections to the magistrate's decision.
3. Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing appellee to record transfer of possession with the Lucas County Auditor.
4. Whether the trial court's nunc pro tunc judgment improperly amended its original judgment rather than merely recording judicial action previously taken.

Disposition

affirmed