753 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2001), 2001 CVG 35, Williams v. Bjork
|Docket Nº:||2001 CVG 35.|
|Citation:||753 N.E.2d 995, 112 Ohio Misc.2d 57, 2001-Ohio-4267|
|Opinion Judge:||ROBERT S. WYNN, Judge.|
|Party Name:||WILLIAMS et al. v. BJORK, a.k.a. Ozinga, et al. [*]|
|Attorney:||McCombs & Kotila and David L. McCombs, Andover, for plaintiffs Roy J. Williams and Dana A. Williams. McCombs & Kotila and David L. McCombs, for plaintiffs Roy J. Williams and Dana A. Williams.|
|Case Date:||July 03, 2001|
|Court:||County Court of Ohio|
On February 5, 2001, plaintiffs filed their "Complaint in Forcible Entry and Detainer for Default under Land Installment Contract and for Damages for Breach of Contract" in this case. In the complaint, plaintiffs demand cancellation of the land installment contract and a forfeiture of defendants' interests in and to the land installment contract in question pursuant to the provisions of R.C. Chapters 5313, 1907, and 1923.
The court finds that both defendants have been duly served with a copy of summons and complaint.
At an earlier stage of this case, counsel for plaintiffs advised the court that defendants had vacated the premises in question, thereby rendering moot the possessory issues.
On June 27, 2001, this case came on for hearing upon the cancellation and forfeiture issues arising from the land installment contract that is at issue. Neither defendant appeared for the June 27, 2001
hearing. Plaintiff Dana A. Williams did appear with plaintiffs' counsel David L. McCombs and evidence was received. The court admitted into evidence a copy of the land installment contract and a copy of the forfeiture notice.
Plaintiffs have not sought in their proof a judgment for unpaid installments, and the court therefore declines to address that factual matter, even though this relief was demanded in the complaint.
The court finds from the evidence that the parties entered into a land installment contract on August 22, 1998. It was duly recorded at Volume 107, Page 8389 of the Ashtabula County Recorder's record of microfiche on October 30, 1998. Defendants, for a while, made the monthly $833.72 payments called for by Paragraph II.B.2. of the agreement. However, during the first half of 2000, they stopped making these payments, and the last one was received in either April or May 2000. No payments have been made since that time. Also, defendants have not maintained insurance on the premises in direct violation of Paragraph IX of the agreement. As a result of these breaches, the court finds that defendants are in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP