Court Opinion

ID: 9947479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:09:50.939472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:29.084965
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Day v. Derry, 2024-Ohio-791.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                TRUMBULL COUNTY

ANGELA M. DAY,                                   CASE NO. 2023-T-0033

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                 Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas

ALAN M. DERRY, et al.,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2022 CV 00687
                 Defendant-Appellee.

                                           OPINION

                                      Decided: March 4, 2024
                                    Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Charles A. Bakula, P.O. Box 39116, Solon, OH 44139 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

Daniel G. Keating, Keating Law Office, 170 Monroe Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44483
(For Defendant-Appellee).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Angela M. Day, appeals the judgment granting appellee, Alan M.

Derry, a writ of restitution and immediate possession of certain real property. We dismiss

the appeal as moot.

        {¶2}     In 2022, Day filed a complaint against appellee, Alan M. Derry, alleging the

following. The parties had been involved in a relationship for 18 years. During their

relationship, Day and Derry agreed to share financial responsibility for living expenses.

In 2021, the parties initiated the purchase of a home in Champion, Ohio. However, the

parties did not list Day on the mortgage or purchase agreement because of a lien resulting
from a civil lawsuit against Day. Nonetheless, the parties agreed that Derry would quit

claim a one-half interest in the property to Day after closing, but that never occurred. In

2022, Derry demanded Day vacate the home and delivered her a 30-day notice. In

addition, Derry canceled Day’s cellular service, credit cards, car insurance, internet

service, and storage unit.

       {¶3}   In September 2022, the parties reached an agreement, which was approved

by the trial court in a judgment entry issued on September 21, 2022. The agreed entry

provided, in relevant part, that prior to March 31, 2023, Day would obtain refinancing on

the real property. If Day failed to secure refinancing, the parties agreed that a writ of

restitution would issue on the request of Derry, who would then be entitled to immediate

possession of the property.    The parties further agreed that the trial court would retain

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the entry. On April 5, 2023, Derry moved for a writ of

restitution pursuant to the September 21, 2022 agreed entry, citing Day’s purported failure

to refinance the property.

       {¶4}   Later, on April 5, 2023, Day responded in opposition to Derry’s motion,

alleging that Derry had breached the agreement, failed to file a counterclaim seeking

possession, and failed to follow the requirements of R.C. Chapter 5321. Within Day’s

response, she further maintained that, due to Derry’s alleged breaches of the agreement,

she was unable to “create a stable financial profile that would have permitted her to obtain

necessary financing.” Accordingly, Day asserted that she was “in the process of vacating

the home”; although her progress in moving had become delayed due to various factors.

Nonetheless, Day maintained that she was “able to secure a new residence” and

expected “to be completely out of the house on N. Park Dr. by midnight of April 9, 2023.”

                                             2

Case No. 2023-T-0033
Day requested the trial court deny Derry’s motion for a writ; however, she did not request

any affirmative relief as a result of the alleged breaches.

       {¶5}   On April 6, 2023, the trial court signed a judgment entry submitted by Derry,

granting Derry’s motion without hearing. Day noticed the present appeal from the April

6, 2023 entry. Upon review of this matter, on December 20, 2023, this court issued an

order requiring Day to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot, as

Day affirmatively maintained that she was vacating the premises, and it was unclear what

relief this court could grant through appeal.

       {¶6}   As noted in our show cause order, an appeal of an entry limited to the grant

of a writ of restitution is generally rendered moot where possession of the property has

been voluntarily surrendered. See Concrete, Inc. v. City of Willowick, 11th Dist. Lake No.

2019-L-091, 2020-Ohio-71, ¶ 5; and Fast Property Sols., Inc. v. Jurczenko, 11th Dist.

Lake No. 2010-L-024, 2010-Ohio-5933, ¶ 2. Where a tenant fails to perfect a stay of the

writ of restitution, and possession of the premises is restored to the landlord, there is no

relief a reviewing court may grant on appeal of the judgment granting the writ. See

Concrete, Inc. at ¶ 5.

       {¶7}   Day filed a response to our show cause order on December 28, 2023.

Therein, Day maintains:

              The Appellant affirmatively states that the appeal is not based
              on the wrongfully issued Writ of Restitution. The cases cited
              by this Honorable Court in Concrete, Inc. v. City of Willowick,
              11th Dist. Lake No. 2019-L-091, 2020-Ohio-71 and Fast
              Property Sols, Inc. v. Jurczenko, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-
              024, 2010-Ohio-5933, are distinguishable and demonstrate
              that those appeals were limited to a single issue, the writ of
              restitution and/or the voluntary surrender.

                                                3

Case No. 2023-T-0033
              Those are not the issues on appeal in this matter. A review
              of the initial brief and reply brief filed by the Appellant
              demonstrate that she is challenging the Judgment Entry in its
              entirety due to the failure of the Settlement Agreement which
              came about as a result of multiple negative actions and some
              inactions taken by the Appellee, each of which constitute a
              breach by the Appellee. Those intentional violations made it
              impossible for Appellant to receive the benefit of the bargain
              for which she negotiated a resolution of the case. The
              Appellant has not asked to be restored to the premises. That
              is not the relief being sought. The relief being sought involves
              the entire Judgment Entry being set aside and the matter
              returned to the active docket as outlined in the briefs.

       {¶8}   Despite Day’s assertion that the appealed issues are not limited to the writ

of restitution, the trial court’s April 6, 2023 judgment provides, in its entirety:

              Upon Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff failed to secure refinancing
              for the subject property listed in the Judgment Entry filed
              September 29, 2022.

              Writ of Restitution of Eviction in this matter is granted.

              Defendant is granted immediate possession of the subject
              property located at 4099 North Park Avenue, Warren, Ohio,
              44483. The Bailiff of this Court or the Trumbull County
              Sheriff's Department is hereby ordered to serve and execute
              this Writ.

              IT IS SO ORDERED.

       {¶9}   Accordingly, the appealed entry grants relief only as to possession of the

property. However, in her appellate merit and reply briefs, Day requests this court “to set

aside the Judgment Entry of September 21, 2022, and to remand the entire matter back

to the Trial Court for the issues to be heard on the actual merits as presented in the

original Complaint.” (Emphasis added.)

       {¶10} However, the relief sought by Day in this appeal was not sought in the trial

court. The appeal arises from a ruling on Derry’s request for a writ of restitution. The

                                               4

Case No. 2023-T-0033
record is devoid of any motions filed by Day subsequent to the issuance of the September

21, 2022 entry. Day did not move to set aside the September 21, 2022 order in the trial

court, and the present appeal may not be used as a vehicle to vacate prior final orders.

       {¶11} Further, assuming without deciding that Day’s response to Derry’s request

for the writ was sufficient to request relief or require the trial court to conduct further

investigation, such issues would remain pending. As set forth above, the relief provided

in the entry on appeal was specifically limited to the writ of restitution for possession of

the property. As with a ruling on a forcible entry and detainer action, the court’s decision

to issue the writ “‘decide[d] the right to immediate possession of property and “nothing

else.”’” Mountaineer Invests., L.L.C. v. Performance Home Buyers, L.L.C., 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 24173, 2011-Ohio-3614, ¶ 10, quoting Goldstein v. Patel, 9th Dist.

Lorain Nos. 02CA8183, 02CA8199, 2003-Ohio-4386, ¶ 4, quoting Seventh Urban Inc. v.

Univ. Circle Prop. Dev. Inc., 67 Ohio St.2d 19, 25, 423 N.E.2d 1070 (1981), fn. 11. A

judgment issuing a writ of restitution in an eviction proceeding is a final, appealable order

despite the existence of other claims and without regard to Civ.R. 54(B). See Dixon v.

Anderson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170418, 2018-Ohio-2312, ¶ 4; see also Cuyahoga

Metropolitan Hous. Auth. v. Jackson, 67 Ohio St.2d 129, 132, 423 N.E.2d 177 (1981) (“a

judgment entry giving or denying a present right to possession of property, under R.C.

Chapter 1923, is appealable even though all the causes of action have not been

adjudicated”). Thus, the only issue decided by the trial court and reviewable on appeal

is the right to immediate possession of the property.

       {¶12} Next, in her response to our show cause order, Day maintains that she did

not “voluntarily” vacate the property at issue, as alleged by Derry, because the trial court

                                             5

Case No. 2023-T-0033
ordered the writ of restitution on April 6, 2023, while she was still residing on the property.

Regardless of Derry’s use of the term “voluntary,” this court’s reference to a “voluntary”

surrender of the property in the show cause order was intended to pertain to a tenant’s

failure to perfect a stay of execution of the writ of restitution pending appeal. See

Concrete, Inc., 2020-Ohio-71 at ¶ 5; see also CommuniCare Health Servs., Inc. v.

Murvine, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23557, 2007-Ohio-4651, ¶ 21 (satisfaction of a judgment

is voluntary where an appellant fails to obtain a stay of execution); and Marotta Bldg. Co.

v. Lesinski, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2004-G-2562, 2005-Ohio-558, ¶ 19 (“The issue

presented here centers on the voluntariness of the so-called satisfaction of the judgment.

Appellants did not voluntarily ‘satisfy’ the judgment. Yet, this court has stated that a party

is deemed to have acted voluntarily in satisfying a judgment when the party fails to seek

a stay order prior to the judgment's being satisfied.”). Thus, the issue with respect to

whether an appeal of a writ of restitution is moot pertains to whether a stay of execution

has been effectuated, not whether the tenant surrendered the property “voluntarily,” as

that term is commonly used. See Hussain v. Sheppard, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-

686, 2015-Ohio-657, ¶ 6-7. Here, Day did not perfect a stay of execution of the appealed

judgment, and Derry has regained possession of the property. Moreover, Day affirms

that she is not attempting to regain possession of the property in any event, as set forth

above.

                                              6

Case No. 2023-T-0033
       {¶13} As Day may not use the present appeal to challenge prior final orders of

the trial court, and the appealed judgment was limited to the grant of a writ of restitution

and possession of the property, Day’s surrender of the property renders her appeal moot.

       {¶14} Appeal dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                             7

Case No. 2023-T-0033