Summary
The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed Harper’s appeal from an order of restitution in a forcible-entry-and-detainer action. The court held that the order was not a final, appealable order because the trial court had not resolved Harper’s counterclaims and had not included Civ.R. 54(B) language. The cause was remanded for further proceedings.
Holdings
- An order awarding restitution in an eviction action is not a final, appealable order when the trial court has not resolved the tenant's counterclaims and has not included a Civ.R. 54(B) determination that there is no just reason for delay.
Questions Presented
- Whether the municipal court's order awarding restitution was a final, appealable order when Harper's counterclaims remained unresolved and the order lacked Civ.R. 54(B) language.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- McKibben v. U.S. Restoration & Remodeling, Inc., 2015-Ohio-1241, ¶ 21-22 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 303, 306 (1971)(followed)
- Gardens v. Rogers, 2020-Ohio-5040, ¶ 29, 32 (6th Dist.)(cited)
- Playing Card Partners L.L.C. v. Parker, Hamilton M.C. No. 24 CV 32978, 2025 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 146, *8 (May 2, 2025)(cited)
- Professional Invests. of Am., Inc. v. Ross, 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 11686, *5 (8th Dist. Dec. 9, 1982)(cited)
- Showe Mgt. Corp. v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-2312, ¶ 42 (5th Dist.)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…