Gulf Equity Invests., L.L.C. v. Clifton , 2024 Ohio 2829 ( 2024 )

[Cite as Gulf Equity Invests., L.L.C. v. Clifton, 2024-Ohio-2829.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
GULF EQUITY INVESTMENTS LLC :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 2023-CA-74
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 23CVG03012
:
CHARLES CLIFTON, BARBARA : (Civil Appeal from Municipal Court)
CLIFTON, ET AL. :
:
Appellants :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on July 26, 2024
...........
JARED A. WAGNER, Attorney for Appellant
JAMES E. HEATH, Attorney for Appellee
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants Charles and Barbara Clifton appeal from the trial
court’s judgment granting plaintiff-appellee, Gulf Equity Investments, LLC, restitution of
the premises located at 2480 Arthur Road in Springfield. They contend that the trial court
-2-
erred in accepting affidavits in place of live testimony at the eviction trial. Because we
find the appeal is moot, this appeal will be dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In early October 2023, Gulf Equity acquired the rural property located at 2480
Arthur Road at a sheriff’s sale in an in rem tax foreclosure case. The property had been
owned by Range AG Land LLC, but the Cliftons resided at the property and kept livestock
and other animals there. On October 11, Robert Wise, on Gulf Equity’s behalf, posted
on the gates at the property a three-day notice for the Cliftons and any others to vacate.
{¶ 3} On October 16, 2023, Gulf Equity filed a forcible entry and detainer action,
seeking restitution of the property. A hearing was scheduled for November 8. The
record reflects that Charles Clifton appeared and requested time to retain counsel.
Clifton apparently claimed that he lacked notice of the foreclosure proceedings which led
to the sale of the property. The hearing was rescheduled for November 15. On
November 14, Clifton again moved for a continuance, stating that he had been unable to
secure counsel in Clark County. A hearing before a magistrate was then scheduled for
November 22, 2023.
{¶ 4} The Cliftons did not appear for the November 22 eviction hearing. The
attorney for Gulf Equity appeared on its behalf. Gulf Equity’s attorney told the court that
he had affidavits from a representative of Gulf Equity and the process server. After
confirming that the action concerned residential property and that the October 11 statutory
notice had been served, the magistrate stated that he would issue a writ of restitution
forthwith. The magistrate issued a decision finding that Gulf Equity was entitled to a writ
-3-
of restitution. The trial judge entered a judgment of restitution the same day.
{¶ 5} Clifton later left a letter on the gates of the property, notifying the sheriff’s
office that they had “departed the property as advised by our Attorney,” although their
belongings and animals/livestock remained. Clifton indicated that the new owner had
spoken to the Cliftons’ attorney and had permitted the Cliftons to tend to their livestock
and remove their property when/if appropriate. Clifton made clear that he was not
intending to abandon his personal or business property.
{¶ 6} Municipal court bailiffs and Clark County deputies went to the property to
execute the writ of restitution on December 4, 2023. They found Clifton’s letter and
confirmed that no one was home. The home was full of belongings and numerous
animals remained at the farm. The officers posted “no trespassing” signs.
{¶ 7} The Cliftons appeal the trial court’s November 22, 2023 judgment, raising
one assignment of error.
II. Analysis
{¶ 8} In their sole assignment of error, the Cliftons claim that “the trial court
committed reversible error by granting [Gulf Equity] restitution without requiring the
presentation of live evidence and based solely on affidavits.” Gulf Equity responds that,
because the Cliftons have vacated the property, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.
In their reply brief, the Cliftons agree that they have vacated the property, but they assert
that adverse collateral consequences preclude application of the mootness doctrine.
Specifically, the Cliftons claim to be the rightful owners of the property on the ground that
Gulf Equity’s ownership interest is based on an invalid foreclosure sale.
-4-
{¶ 9} The “role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue
judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9, citing
Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970). Thus, when the parties to an action
“ ‘lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id., quoting
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). Conversely, “if an actual controversy
exists because it is possible for a court to grant the requested relief, the case is not moot,
and a consideration of the merits is warranted.” (Citations omitted.) State ex rel.
Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 2010-Ohio-1844, ¶ 11. An “appellate court need not consider
an issue, and will dismiss the appeal, when [it] becomes aware of an event that has
rendered the issue moot * * *.” Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2004-
Ohio-5466, ¶ 15, citing Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 238 (1910); see also Townsend v.
Antioch Univ., 2009-Ohio-2552, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.), citing Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d
131, 133 (1991). We conclude that the pending appeal is moot. As such, it must be
dismissed.
{¶ 10} “A forcible entry and detainer action decides the right to immediate
possession of property and ‘nothing else.’ ” Miami Valley Housing v. Jackson, 2012-Ohio-
5103, ¶ 5 (2d Dist.), quoting Goldstein v. Patel, 2003-Ohio-4386, ¶ 4 (9th Dist.), quoting
Seventh Urban, Inc. v. University Circle Property Dev., Inc., 67 Ohio St.2d 19, 25, fn. 11
(1981). Because the only issue is the complainant’s right to immediate possession, once
the tenant or occupier vacates the property, the case becomes moot. Wise v. Webb,
2015-Ohio-4298, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), citing Cherry v. Morgan, 2012-Ohio-3594, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.).
This is so because, when the occupier moves from the property, the reason for the action
-5-
(immediate possession) has been accomplished. Art Paradise, Inc. v. Washington,
2021-Ohio-4586, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 11} The only way an occupier can avoid the mootness conclusion in this
situation is set forth in R.C. 1923.14(A), which allows a tenant, pending appeal, to retain,
or even recover, possession of the property by seeking a stay of the restitution order and
posting a supersedeas bond. Wise at ¶ 12, citing Cherry at ¶ 5.
{¶ 12} Here, the Cliftons do not contest that they have vacated the property.
Moreover, they did not seek a stay of the trial court’s order of restitution or post a
supersedeas bond.
{¶ 13} We recognize that the mootness doctrine does have limited exceptions that,
when present, allow review. Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora, 2022-Ohio-2375, ¶ 14
(2d Dist.). In their reply brief, the Cliftons refer to the collateral-consequences exception
to the mootness doctrine, asserting that Gulf Equity did not properly obtain title to the farm
property. However, the collateral-consequences exception to mootness applies in cases
in which the collateral consequence is imposed as a matter of law. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-
24, at ¶ 9; Hora at ¶ 18. The Cliftons have not identified any such consequences.
Based on the record before us, this appeal is moot.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 14} This appeal will be dismissed.
.............
EPLEY, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.