Court Opinion

ID: 9913443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 21:07:18.864204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:18.691470
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Bewley v. Hudson, 2023-Ohio-4768.]

STATE OF OHIO                   )                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                )ss:               NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA                )

GARY BEWLEY                                        C.A. No.      23CA0030-M

        Appellee

        v.                                         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                   ENTERED IN THE
LINDA HUDSON, et al.                               COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                   COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
        Appellants                                 CASE No.   22CIV0353

                                DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: December 27, 2023

        CARR, Judge.

        {¶1}    Appellants Linda and Billy Hudson (collectively “the Hudsons”), A Taste of

Summer, LLC, and Jessica Frazier appeal the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common

Pleas. This Court dismisses the appeal as moot.

                                              I.

        {¶2}    In April 2022, Appellee Gary Bewley filed a complaint for forcible entry and

detainer in the Medina Municipal Court naming Ms. Hudson and A Taste of Summer, LLC as

Defendants. Mr. Bewley alleged that Ms. Hudson operated a U-Haul business on property adjacent

to his and that Ms. Frazier, Ms. Hudson’s daughter, operated A Taste of Summer, LLC, also on

land adjacent to Mr. Bewley’s. Mr. Bewley allowed Ms. Hudson and A Taste of Summer, LLC

to utilize a portion of Mr. Bewley’s parking lot and allowed A Taste of Summer, LLC to use a

kitchen on Mr. Bewley’s property. Following a disagreement, Mr. Bewley requested that Ms.
                                                 2

Hudson and A Taste of Summer, LLC discontinue using his property. The record discloses that

Mr. Bewley and Ms. Hudson are siblings.

       {¶3}    Ms. Hudson filed an answer and a counterclaim. Therein, she maintained that she

and Mr. Hudson owned the property adjacent to Mr. Bewley’s and that the Hudson’s operated a

U-Haul business from their property since 1982. Ms. Hudson maintained that they could only

access their property by crossing Mr. Bewley’s and thus they had an easement. Ms. Hudson sought

in excess of $25,000 in damages. As the request for relief exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the

municipal court, the matter was thereafter transferred to the court of common pleas.

       {¶4}    A Taste of Summer, LLC filed an answer to the complaint and also filed a

counterclaim and a third-party complaint naming Ms. Hudson and Skyview Lodge, Inc., which

was an event center operated by the family on Mr. Bewley’s property. Within that document, Ms.

Frazier also purported to file a third-party complaint naming Mr. Bewley, Ms. Hudson, and

Skyview Lodge, Inc.

       {¶5}    In the counterclaim, A Taste of Summer, LLC asserted claims for quantum meruit

and easement by estoppel as to Mr. Bewley. As to the third-party complaints, A Taste of Summer,

LLC and Ms. Frazier each asserted a claim for quantum meruit and Ms. Frazier raised a claim of

easement by estoppel as to Mr. Bewley. Thereafter, a joint stipulation was filed to join Mr. Hudson

as a Defendant. The parties then filed a joint motion to allow Ms. Frazier to intervene in the action

in light of the answer and related filings of A Taste of Summer, LLC. The motion was granted.

       {¶6}    Skyview Lodge, Inc. then filed a counterclaim asserting that Ms. Frazier engaged

in disgorgement and breached a duty of loyalty as well as committed civil theft. A Taste of

Summer, LLC and Ms. Frazier sought to amend their pleadings and were granted leave to do so.

The amendment added claims of easement by prior use.
                                                  3

         {¶7}   In August 2022, the Hudsons filed a separate action seeking injunctive relief and

naming Mr. Bewley and Brunswick Hills Township as Defendants. The Hudsons maintained that

the fence that Mr. Bewley was planning to construct violated zoning ordinances, would prevent

the Hudsons from accessing their property, and that the Hudsons possessed an easement. The

Hudsons also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction. The parties reached

agreement with respect to the injunctive relief issues. The Hudsons agreed to dismiss Brunswick

Hills Township and it was agreed that the Hudsons and A Taste of Summer, LLC could access

portions of Mr. Bewley’s property subject to further order of the trial court. This action was

ultimately consolidated with the other matter. In the other matter, A Taste of Summer, LLC filed

a motion seeking a restraining order and an injunction preventing Mr. Bewley from interfering

with the business after Ms. Frazier discovered actions that she believed violated the agreement.

         {¶8}   In October 2022, the forcible entry and detainer action was tried before a magistrate

together with the claims of easement. The magistrate found in favor of Mr. Bewley on the forcible

entry and detainer action and concluded that there had not been a demonstration of implied

easement by necessity, prior use, or estoppel. The magistrate recommended staying the judgment

for 90 days to allow time for access to be developed to the Hudsons’ property. Objections were

filed.

         {¶9}   In March 2023, the trial court entered judgment adopting and modifying the

magistrate’s decision. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Bewley as the magistrate had, but

ordered that the judgment would be stayed until October 31, 2023, in order that the Hudsons could

implement a plan to access their property.

         {¶10} Thereafter, A Taste of Summer, LLC and Ms. Frazier dismissed their remaining

claims against Mr. Bewley, Ms. Hudson, and Skyview Lodge, Inc. without prejudice. Mr. Bewley
                                                 4

and Skyview Lodge, Inc. then filed a similar motion dismissing their remaining claims. On March

30, 2023, the trial court entered judgment dismissing any remaining claims and motions. The

Hudsons, Ms. Frazier, and A Taste of Summer, LLC moved to stay the judgment pending appeal,

but that motion was ultimately denied.

       {¶11} The Hudsons, Ms. Frazier, and A Taste of Summer, LLC have appealed, raising

two assignments of error, which will be addressed together to facilitate our review. Mr. Bewley

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The motion was opposed, and this Court deferred

the decision on the issue until final disposition of the appeal. The issue of mootness was also

discussed at oral argument.

                                                II.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
       DETAINER TO PROCEED AS A MATTER OF LAW, AS APPELLANT[S] ARE
       NOT TENANTS NOR OCCUPANTS PURSUANT TO []R.C. 1923.02

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANTS[’] CLAIMS TO AN
       IMPLIED EASEMENT BY NECESSITY.

       {¶12} The Hudsons, Ms. Frazier, and A Taste of Summer, LLC argue in their first

assignment of error that the trial court erred in allowing the matter to proceed as a forcible entry

and detainer action. They assert in their second assignment of error that the trial court erred in

denying the claims to an implied easement by necessity. Specifically, they argue that Mr. Bewley

has made it “nearly impossible” to finish the needed construction to provide themselves with

access to their property.

       {¶13} “As a general rule, courts will not resolve issues which are moot.” State v. Swisher,

9th Dist. Summit No. 30169, 2023-Ohio-3327, ¶ 5, quoting Boncek v. Stewart, 9th Dist. Summit
                                                 5

No. 21054, 2002-Ohio-5778, ¶ 10. “Actions are moot when they involve no actual genuine

controversy which can definitely affect the parties’ existing legal relationship. A moot case is one

which seeks to get a judgment * * * upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason cannot

have any practical legal effect upon a then-existing controversy.” (Internal quotations and citations

omitted.) Harris v. Akron, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24499, 2009-Ohio-3865, ¶ 7. “[A] court may

consider evidence that is outside the record to determine if a case is moot.” (Internal quotations

and citations omitted.) Breen v. Summit Cty. Child Enforcement Agency, 9th Dist. Summit No.

28759, 2018-Ohio-2501, ¶ 7.

       {¶14} In the motion to dismiss, Mr. Bewley asserts that, on November 2, 2023, a writ of

execution was served on the Hudsons effectuating the eviction order. The writ of execution was

attached to the motion to dismiss.

       {¶15} “A forcible entry and detainer action decides the right to immediate possession of

property and nothing else.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Farla LLC v. Pretlow, 9th Dist. Lorain

No. 21CA011731, 2021-Ohio-4468, ¶ 4, quoting Goldstein v. Patel, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos.

02CA008183, 02CA008199, 2003-Ohio-4386, ¶ 4, quoting Seventh Urban, Inc. v. Univ. Circle

Property Dev., Inc., 67 Ohio St.2d 19, 25, fn. 11 (1981). “Once the landowner has been restored

to his property, the forcible entry and detainer action becomes moot because there is no further

relief that may be granted to the landowner.” Farla LLC at ¶ 4, quoting Goldstein at ¶ 4. “That is

because retrial of the matter would not give the landowner anything more than what it had already

acquired, which is possession of the premises.” Farla LLC at ¶ 4.

       {¶16} “A defendant appealing a judgment of forcible entry and detainer may overcome a

ruling of mootness by obtaining a stay of execution and/or posting a supersedeas bond.” Farla

LLC at ¶ 5, quoting Goldstein at ¶ 4. “If a landowner is successful in a forcible entry and detainer
                                                 6

action, however, and the ‘defendant fails to obtain a stay of execution and/or post a supersedeas

bond, all issues relating to forcible entry and detainer are rendered moot.’” Farla LLC at ¶ 5,

quoting Goldstein at ¶ 4.

       {¶17} While the judgment was initially stayed, it expired at the end of October 2023, and

the Hudsons, Ms. Frazier, and A Taste of Summer, LLC were unable to obtain a further stay. Thus,

issues related to the forcible entry and detainer proceedings are moot.

       {¶18} Moreover, the essence of the second assignment of error is an assertion that Mr.

Bewley’s actions were preventing the Hudsons from completing the construction of the alternative

access point. However, that argument is also moot, as it became apparent at oral argument that

alternative access is now available.

       {¶19} Accordingly, both assignments of error have been rendered moot.

                                                III.

       {¶20} The assignments of error are moot. The appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                 Appeal dismissed.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
                                         7

      Costs taxed to Appellants.

                                             DONNA J. CARR
                                             FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, P. J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JOHN C. OBERHOLTZER, Attorney at Law, for Appellants.

JEFFREY S. MOELLER and AMELIA J. LEONARD, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.