OIG Homes, L.L.C. v. Stricklen ( 2021 )

[Cite as OIG Homes, L.L.C. v. Stricklen, 2021-Ohio-3769.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
OIG Homes, LLC Court of Appeals No. L-21-1029
Appellee Trial Court No. 20 CVG 00480
v.
Dawn Clark Stricklen, et al.
Defendant DECISION AND JUDGMENT
[Todd Stricklen-Appellant] Decided: October 22, 2021
*****
Matthew J. Weisenburger, for appellee.
Todd Stricklen, pro se
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Todd Stricklen, appeals the February 4, 2021 judgment
of the Oregon Municipal Court, which granted judgment to plaintiff-appellee, OIG
Homes, LLC, for restitution of the premises located at 2710 Seaman Road in Oregon,
Ohio. The matter was fully briefed and is now decisional. However, the trial court
record indicates that Stricklen vacated the property on September 23, 2021, after failing
to deposit a $1,000 supersedeas bond, as he had been ordered to do as a condition of stay
of the execution of the writ of restitution.
{¶ 2} As we explained recently in Tiefenbacher v. Shorter, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-
20-1186, 2021-Ohio-2624, ¶ 20, an action in forcible entry and detainer “determines the
right to immediate possession of the property and nothing else.” (Internal citations and
quotations omitted.) Id. “[O]nce a landlord has been restored to the property, the
forcible entry and detainer action becomes moot because, having been restored to the
premises, there is no further relief that can be granted.” (Internal citations and quotations
omitted.) Id.{¶ 3} The only way for a defendant appealing a judgment of forcible entry and
detainer to prevent the cause from becoming moot is described in R.C. 1923.14. Id. That
statute “provides a means by which the defendant may maintain, or even recover,
possession of the disputed premises during the course of his appeal by filing a timely
notice of appeal, seeking a stay of execution, and posting a supersedeas bond.” (Internal
citations and quotations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 21. “If the defendant fails to avail himself of
this remedy, all issues relating to the action are rendered moot by his eviction from the
premises.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Id.
2.
{¶ 4} Here, Stricklen filed a timely notice of appeal and sought and was granted a
stay of execution on February 9, 2021. The stay required Stricklen (1) to post a
supersedeas bond of $3,000, representing a $1,000 monthly rental obligation for February
and March 2021, along with a $1,000 security deposit, and (2) to post a supersedeas bond
of $1,000 every month by the first of each month during the pendency of appeal.
{¶ 5} In a September 13, 2021 judgment, the municipal court found that Stricklen
violated the terms of the stay by failing to deposit $1,000 in September of 2021,
therefore, the court lifted the stay and scheduled execution of the writ of restitution for
September 23, 2021. The writ of restitution was returned and filed with the court on
September 23, 2021, and indicates that Stricklen “is in the process of moving” and was
“evicted from the property.”
{¶ 6} Accordingly, Stricklen’s appeal has been rendered moot by his eviction from
the premises. See Valente v. Johnson, 4th Dist. Athens No. 06CA31, 2007-Ohio-2664, ¶
22 (“Tenant did seek a stay of execution, but failed to perfect it by posting the required
bond. Because she did not perfect a stay of the writ of restitution, it was executed on
August 31, 2006, causing Tenant’s ouster from the premises. Thus, her appeal of the
forcible entry and detainer action is moot, and we need not consider it.”). We dismiss
Stricklen’s appeal. All pending motions are rendered moot.
{¶ 7} The costs of this appeal are assessed to Stricklen under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
3.
OIG Homes LLC v.
Dawn Clark Stricklen, et al.
[Todd Stricklen-Appellant]
L-21-1029
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
4.