Adams v. Romine
| Decision Date | 11 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CT2018-0043,CT2018-0043 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 482,130 N.E.3d 1050 |
| Parties | Tina ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Edward J. ROMINE, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
{¶1} Appellant appeals the June 1, 2018 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas granting appellee's motion for summary judgment.
{¶2} On February 20, 2018, appellant Tina Adams filed a complaint against appellee Edward Romine. In the complaint, appellant alleges appellee was the owner of the residential premises located at 506 Wayne Avenue and appellant was a tenant of appellee, residing at 506 Wayne Avenue. Appellant avers appellee, "as the landlord, had a duty to maintain the premises in a safe and habitable condition, free of hazards and defects." Further, that she suffered serious injuries "as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendant in failing to maintain the premises in a safe condition, free of hazards." Appellant alleges the "back steps of the subject premises were hazardous, thereby constituting the negligence of the defendant and resulting in the injuries suffered by the plaintiff."
{¶3} Appellee filed an answer March 5, 2018, admitting appellant was a tenant prior to her eviction and admitting landlords and tenants have duties as set forth by the Ohio Revised Code, but denying the remainder of the allegations.
{¶4} Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on April 2, 2018, arguing appellant's claims are barred by res judicata.
{¶5} Attached to the motion for summary judgment is the affidavit of appellee. Appellee avers he is the landlord for the property at 506 Wayne Avenue and he and appellant entered into a lease of the property in 2006. Appellee alleges he filed a forcible entry and detainer action and damages action against appellant in Zanesville Municipal Court in 2014. Appellee states appellant did not file a counterclaim, the municipal court conducted a damages hearing, and the municipal court awarded a judgment in appellee's favor in the amount of $ 3,268.61 on his damages claim. Appellee attached a copy of the agreed judgment entry and judgment entry on damages from the municipal court, and avers they are true and accurate copies.
{¶6} The agreed judgment entry dated August 28, 2014 states appellee agreed to dismiss the forcible entry and detainer action if appellant vacated the property on or before September 30, 2014. Appellee further agreed to dismiss the damages action if appellant vacated the property by September 30, 2014 and left the premises in good condition. The agreed judgment entry states if, upon inspection by appellee, the premises were not in good condition, appellee may proceed with the damages cause of action; additionally, that appellant had until October 28, 2014 to file her answer to the damages cause of action.
{¶7} The November 24, 2014 judgment entry states the court held a damages hearing and ordered judgment be entered in favor of appellee in the amount of $ 3,268.61.
{¶8} Appellant filed a memorandum contra to appellee's motion on May 10, 2018. Attached to the memorandum in opposition is appellant's affidavit. Appellant avers it was her understanding that upon her moving out of the premises, the entire complaint against her would be dismissed in municipal court. Further, appellant states she did not receive notice of the damages hearing, was unaware judgment had been rendered against her, and her attorney in the municipal court action did not advise her it was necessary to assert a claim for the injuries she suffered.
{¶9} Appellee filed a reply in support his motion for summary judgment on May 24, 2018.
{¶10} The trial court granted appellee's motion on June 1, 2018. Appellant appeals the June 1, 2018 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas and assigns the following as error:
{¶11} "I. RES JUDICATA DOES NOT BAR APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE HER CLAIM IN THE FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER ACTION.
{¶12}
{¶13} Civ.R. 56 states, in pertinent part:
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed mostly strongly in the party's favor. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.
{¶14} A trial court should not enter a summary judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed, nor if, construing the allegations most favorably towards the non-moving party, reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from the undisputed facts. Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co. , 67 Ohio St.2d 427, 424 N.E.2d 311 (1981). The court may not resolve any ambiguities in the evidence presented. Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Inds. of Ohio, Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 474 N.E.2d 271 (1984). A fact is material if it affects the outcome of the case under the applicable substantive law. Russell v. Interim Personnel, Inc. , 135 Ohio App.3d 301, 733 N.E.2d 1186 (6th Dist. 1999).
{¶15} When reviewing a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, an appellate court applies the same standard used by the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. , 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987). This means we review the matter de novo. Doe v. Shaffer , 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 738 N.E.2d 1243 (2000).
I. & II.
{¶16} We consider appellant's assignments of error together because they are interrelated.
{¶17} Appellant argues res judicata does not apply because she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims in the municipal court action because she believed the case was dismissed after she moved out and because she was not given proper notice of the damages hearing. Appellee contends the requirements for res judicata are met.
{¶18} The doctrine of res judicata precludes "relitigation of a point of law or fact that was at issue in a former action between the same parties and was passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction." State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Indus. Comm. , 80 Ohio St.3d 649, 687 N.E.2d 768 (1998). In order to apply the doctrine of res judicata, we must conclude the following: "(1) there was a prior valid judgment on the merits; (2) the second action involved the same parties as the first action; (3) the present action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) both actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence." Grava v. Parkman Twp. , 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995).
{¶19} There is no dispute the prior damages action involved the same parties as in this case, appellant and appellee. Additionally, though appellant alleges she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claim in the municipal court action because she did not know she had to present her counterclaim at that time, res judicata also extends to claims that "were or could have been litigated" in the first action.
State ex rel. Massey v. Stark Cty. Common Pleas Ct. , 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00003, 2017-Ohio-1351, 2017 WL 1367101 ; Franklin v. Brown , 5th Dist. Richland No. 16CA24, 2016-Ohio-7032, 2016 WL 5631507. Appellant alleges she suffered injury on the steps on May 1, 2014. The damages action was filed on August 4, 2014 and judgment was entered against appellant on November 24, 2014. Thus, appellant's negligence claim could have been litigated in the first action.
{¶20} Further, the November 24, 2018 judgment entry of the Zanesville Municipal Court granting judgment to appellee and awarding appellee damages of $ 3,268.61 is a prior valid judgment on the merits. Though appellant argues she was not given proper notice of the damages hearing in the municipal court case and contends she thought the case was dismissed after she moved out, the November 24, 2014 judgment entry was a valid judgment on the merits from which no appeal was taken.
{¶21} In this case, the question of whether both actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence for purposes of res judicata is intertwined with the question of whether appellant's claim in this case was a compulsory counterclaim to appellee's prior damages action. Appellant contends her claim is not a compulsory counterclaim because a claim by a tenant does not have to be asserted as a counterclaim in a forcible entry and detainer action. Specifically, appellant argues Civil Rule 13(A) is inapplicable to forcible entry and detainer actions. Appellee argues appellant's claim was a compulsory counterclaim to the action for damages in 2014.
{¶22} Civil Rule 13 governs compulsory counterclaims and provides, "a pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction."
{¶23} The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soliel Tans, L.L.C. v. Timber Bentley Coe, L.L.C.
...13(A) does apply to that other action and, consequently, the tenant must assert compulsory counterclaims." Id. See also Adams v. Romine, 2019-Ohio-482, 130 N.E.3d 1050, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.) ("[a]lthough Civil Rule 13(A) is inapplicable to a forcible entry and detainer action, it is applicable t......