[Cite as Redman v. Hope Harbor Baptist Church, 2024-Ohio-3056.]

-1-

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

LOGAN COUNTY

CYNTHIA SUE REDMAN,

CASE NO. 8-24-02

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 v.

HOPE HARBOR BAPTIST CHURCH, O P I N I O N

FRED ALBERT, PASTOR,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Appeal from Bellefontaine Municipal Court

Trial Court No. 23 CVG 0005

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: August 12, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Kaileigh B. Vermillion for Appellant

Steven R. Fansler for Appellee
Case No. 8-24-02

-2-

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Cynthia Sue Redman (“Redman”), brings this 

appeal from the December 4, 2023 judgment of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court. 

On appeal, Redman argues that the trial court erred by denying her complaint for 

Forcible Entry and Detainer (“FED”) against defendant-appellee, Hope Harbor 

Baptist Church (“Hope Harbor”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} In 2008, Redman and her husband, Jim, purchased a property in Logan 

County consisting of just over an acre of land and a building that had been 

previously used as a church. Fred Albert (“Albert”), a pastor, contacted the Redmans 

when he learned that the building on the property was empty to inquire about renting 

it for a church. Ultimately the Redmans agreed to lease the property to Hope Harbor 

for $500 per month. However, the parties did not reduce their agreement to writing. 

{¶3} Albert indicated that Jim permitted Hope Harbor to forgo paying rent 

for the first couple of months so that the church could “g[e]t on [its] feet.” (Tr. at 

37). After those initial months, Hope Harbor regularly paid rent in the amount of 

$500 per month from 2009-2014.

{¶4} According to Albert, in 2014, Jim stated that he was going to donate the 

property at issue to Hope Harbor. Albert indicated he was grateful and thanked both 
Case No. 8-24-02

-3-

Jim and his wife, was also present. According to Albert, Jim claimed his attorney 

had cancer and they would have to delay the transfer of the deed until it was 

beneficial for tax purposes. However, the Redmans did not transfer the deed to the 

property to Hope Harbor.

{¶5} From 2014 forward, Hope Harbor did not pay any rent. In addition, any 

repairs that were needed on the premises were done at Hope Harbor’s expense. 

Further, when the church flooded at one point, Jim told Albert, in front of another 

witness, that Jim hoped Albert had insurance because the property was no longer 

Jim’s. Albert stated that the church had paid over $20,000 in repairs between 2014 

and 2022 that the church would not have paid if the church was simply a tenant.

{¶6} Jim died in 2016. Redman then became the sole owner of the property 

at issue. Redman did not collect any rent from Hope Harbor.

{¶7} In January of 2023, Redman served Hope Harbor with a notice to leave 

the premises pursuant to R.C. 1923.04, alleging that the church had failed to pay 

rent. A complaint was subsequently filed in the Bellefontaine Municipal Court. 

Hope Harbor filed an answer and a “counterclaim,” seeking, inter alia, that the 

eviction to be denied. Notably, although styled as a “counterclaim,” Hope Harbor 

only sought that the eviction be denied and a trial be held on the merits.

{¶8} A hearing was held on November 30, 2023. At the hearing, Redman 

and Albert provided testimony. In addition, another witness testified that he had 
Case No. 8-24-02

-4-

overheard Jim after the flood saying that he hoped Hope Harbor had insurance 

because the property was not Jim’s any longer.

{¶9} On December 4, 2023, the trial court issued a written judgment entry 

summarizing the proceedings and the legal arguments of the parties. The trial court 

then came to the following conclusion:

[T]he Court has not been asked to determine ownership of the 

property. The only issue before the Court is whether the Defendants 

should be evicted from the property for non-payment of rent. Based 

on the evidence presented and the course of conduct of both parties 

over the last 14[]years, the Court finds that the Defendants are not and 

have not been required to pay rent since the flood in 2014, and 

therefore cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent.

(Doc. No. 125). The trial court thus denied Redman’s claim for eviction. It is from 

this judgment that Redman appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for 

our review.

Assignment of Error

The trial court erred as a matter of law in denying eviction for 

non-payment of rent.

{¶10} In her assignment of error, Redman argues that the trial court erred by 

determining Hope Harbor could not be evicted for non-payment of rent due to the 

parties’ customs. 
Case No. 8-24-02

-5-

Standard of Review

{¶11} Redman contends that her argument concerns an issue of law, and thus 

we should review the matter de novo. However, Redman is actually arguing that the 

trial court’s determination regarding the parties’ customs was against the weight of 

the evidence. Thus we must review the trial court’s decision under a manifest weight 

of the evidence standard.

{¶12} In a civil appeal from a bench trial, we generally review the trial 

court’s judgment under a manifest weight standard of review. E.G., Tecumseh 

Landing, L.L.C. v. Bonetzky, 2015-Ohio-2741, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). The Supreme Court 

of Ohio explained weight of the evidence in a civil context in Eastley v. Volkman, 

2012-Ohio-2179, as follows:

“Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater 

amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of 

the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the [trier of fact] 

that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their 

verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the 

greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be 

established before them. Weight is not a question of mathematics, but 

depends on its effect in inducing belief.’ ”

(Emphasis deleted.) Eastley at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 

387 (1997), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990). 

{¶13} In assessing whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, we examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable 
Case No. 8-24-02

-6-

inferences, consider the witnesses’ credibility, and determine whether, in resolving 

conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a 

manifest miscarriage of justice that the verdict must be overturned and a new trial 

ordered. Eastley at ¶ 20, citing Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 (9th 

Dist.2001). However, “[i]n reviewing the judgment of a trial court following 

a bench trial as being against the manifest weight of the evidence we are guided by 

a presumption that the trial court’s findings are correct.” Bonetzky at ¶ 25. 

Analysis

{¶14} The majority of the facts in this case are not disputed. It is not disputed 

that Hope Harbor and the Redmans had an oral agreement for Hope Harbor to lease 

the Redmans’ property. It is not disputed that for several years Hope Harbor paid 

$500 per month in rent to the Redmans. Further, it is not disputed that the “lease”

was never reduced to writing.

{¶15} The primary dispute in this case began in 2014, when Albert claims 

that the Redmans indicated that they would be transferring the property to Hope 

Harbor. From that point forward, Hope Harbor paid no rent. 

{¶16} Albert died in 2016, but in the roughly two years before he passed, and 

for six years after he passed, Hope Harbor did not pay any rent on the property. 

During that time, Hope Harbor conducted and paid for all of its own repairs. In fact, 

Albert testified that Hope harbor expended over $20,000 in repairs to the property 

that would have been the responsibility of a landlord if that was the understanding.
Case No. 8-24-02

-7-

Notably, the Redmans’ tax records from 2014 to 2016 were introduced into 

evidence, showing that they had rental properties but no rental income.

{¶17} The trial court reviewed the evidence and determined that Hope 

Harbor could not be evicted specifically for “non-payment of rent.” The trial court 

determined that Hope Harbor had not been required to pay rent since 2014. The trial 

court’s determination is consistent with the evidence presented at trial. 

{¶18} The issue in this case is narrow. Redman seeks to evict Hope Harbor 

for non-payment of rent. However, the evidence supports a finding that since 2014, 

the course of conduct between the parties did not require Hope Harbor to pay any 

rent. Since the course of conduct for numerous years did not require Hope Harbor 

to pay rent, Hope Harbor cannot be evicted specifically for non-payment of rent.

See Quinn v. Cardinal Foods, Inc., 20 Ohio App.3d 194, 197 (3d Dist.1984) 

(holding that “where * * * a course of conduct is engaged in between the parties to 

a lease, which is contrary to the specific provisions within the lease, such conduct 

will speak for itself, and the parties will be estopped from denying that conduct and 

its immediate and logical consequences.”). Stated differently, the basis for an 

eviction cannot be the failure to perform an action that a party has not been required 

to do. Therefore, Redman’s assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion
Case No. 8-24-02

-8-

{¶19} Having found no error prejudicial to Redman in the particulars 

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. AND MILLER, J. concur