[Cite as Landis Properties 1, L.L.C. v. Sheehan, 2024-Ohio-2755.]
.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Landis Properties 1, LLC Court of Appeals No. L-23-1157
Appellee Trial Court No. CVG2300529
v.
Hope Sheehan, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellants Decided: July 19, 2024
*****
David T. Brady, for appellee.
Hope Sheehan and Sean Sheehan, pro se.
***** SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} In this forcible entry and detainer action, appellants, Hope and Sean
Sheehan, pro se, appeal the June 20, 2023 judgment of the Sylvania Municipal Court
finding them in default of their residential lease agreement with appellee, Landis
Properties 1, LLC, and granting Landis’ request for a writ of restitution of the property.
For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On June 18, 2021, the Sheehans and Landis entered into a residential
purchase agreement wherein Landis agreed to sell the Sheehans property located at 128
North Harefoote Road in Springfield Township, Lucas County, Ohio, for the sum of
$121,540. The sale would take place within 12 months or when the Sheehans were able
to secure financing for up to 24 months from the date of signing. The parties entered into
a residential lease agreement for the same property. The lease required monthly
payments of $1,475 from June 18, 2021, until June 17, 2022. Thereafter, if the Sheehans
had not yet purchased the property, the lease would convert to a month-to-month tenancy
at a monthly rate of $1,534.
{¶ 3} On May 2, 2023, Landis filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer.
The complaint alleged that the Sheehans were delinquent on their rental payments.
Landis claimed it was owed $5,386 in unpaid rent and late fees as of the date of the
complaint. Landis attached the deed, lease agreement, payment ledger, the 30-day notice,
and the 3-day notice required under R.C. 1923.04. The Sheehans did not file an answer
to the complaint.
{¶ 4} On June 15, 2023, the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. The
parties discussed whether the court had jurisdiction over the proceeding. The court’s
bailiff investigated the matter and Landis stated that the deed, attached to its complaint,
reflected that the property was located in Springfield Township, Lucas County, Ohio.
Landis called two witnesses. First it presented the testimony of the process server who
2. on February 27, 2023, served the Sheehans with the 30-day notice to leave the residence
and on April 4, 2023, posted the 3-day notice to vacate on the door of the residence.
Landis then presented testimony of an iLink Real Estate Company employee who
reviewed the paperwork in preparation for trial. The employee denied that he
“represented” Landis but stated that American Destiny, a company he works with
concerning the sale of bank-owned properties, asked him to testify. He was not sure of
the relationship between American Destiny and Landis. The ledger provided to the
employee showed that the Sheehans stopped making payments in September 2022. The
employee testified that the Sheehans defaulted on the lease agreement.
{¶ 5} At the request of Landis’ counsel, the trial court admitted all documents
attached to the complaint into evidence. The documents admitted included the deed
evidencing Landis’ ownership of the property, the residential lease and purchase
agreements, the rental payment ledger, and the 30-day and 3-day notices.
{¶ 6} The trial court questioned the Sheehans regarding the residential purchase
agreement. Hope Sheehan stated that as of July 2022, they had $13,000 of equity in the
premises. The Sheehans admitted that the signatures on the lease agreement “could be”
or were “possibly” theirs. Hope stated that Landis was aware of their financial
difficulties and that Landis terminated their access to a payment portal, which prevented
them from making any further payments.
{¶ 7} On June 20, 2023, the trial court found the Sheehans in default of the terms
of the lease agreement, determined that under R.C. 5313.07 they had not paid more than
3. 20 percent of the purchase price and had not made payments for 5 years,1 and ordered the
issuance of a writ of restitution. This appeal followed.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} The Sheehans raise the following assignment of error
1. The trial court abused its discretion by allowing the testimony of
an expert witness when the witness did not have specialized knowledge,
skill, experience, or training regarding the subject matter of the testimony.
The court also allowed a representative of the court (attorney Austin B.
Barnes) to present a case he had no prior knowledge of before walking into
court. We also believe Sylvania municipal court doesn’t have jurisdiction
over this case.
III. Analysis
{¶ 9} The Sheehans’ sole assignment of error raises multiple arguments. The
court will first address their argument that Sylvania Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction
over this case. Municipal courts have jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer actions
pursuant to R.C. Chapter 1923. Additionally, “[t]he Sylvania municipal court has
jurisdiction * * * within those portions of Swanton, Monclova, and Springfield townships
lying north of the northerly boundary line of the Ohio turnpike, in Lucas County.” R.C.
1 R.C. 5313.07 requires the commencement of a foreclosure, rather than an eviction, in cases where the buyer in a land installment contract has paid for a five-year period or has paid 20 percent of the total sum.
4. 1901.02(B). Here, the subject property is located within trial court’s territorial
jurisdiction, and therefore, it had jurisdiction over this case.
{¶ 10} The Sheehans also maintain that the trial court abused its discretion by
allowing two expert witnesses to testify absent evidence of their specialized knowledge.
The admission or exclusion of witness testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial
court. State v. Walton, 2023-Ohio-1101, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Tuggle, 2010-
Ohio-4162, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.); Evid.R. 701.
{¶ 11} Landis presented the testimony of two witnesses: a process server and an
employee of iLink. The process server testified as a fact witness, not as an expert, as his
testimony was based on personal knowledge regarding the case. The iLink employee was
also a fact witness. When the trial court questioned the basis of the iLink employee’s
knowledge, Landis’ attorney explained that Landis, a New York company registered to
do business in Ohio, contracted with a local company affiliated with iLink and that is
how the employee received the documents to review prior to the hearing. Upon review,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion allowing testimony from these witnesses.
{¶ 12} The Sheehans further argue that Landis’ attorney lacked knowledge of the
facts of the case and was not qualified to testify at trial. They point to the fact that he
initially filed the matter in Toledo Municipal Court where it was dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction. The record reflects the parties’ and the trial court’s uncertainty as to whether
the Sylvania Municipal Court had jurisdiction over the action. The issue was resolved
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Landis Properties 1, L.L.C. v. Sheehan, 2024-Ohio-2755.]
.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Landis Properties 1, LLC Court of Appeals No. L-23-1157
Appellee Trial Court No. CVG2300529
v.
Hope Sheehan, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellants Decided: July 19, 2024
*****
David T. Brady, for appellee.
Hope Sheehan and Sean Sheehan, pro se.
***** SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} In this forcible entry and detainer action, appellants, Hope and Sean
Sheehan, pro se, appeal the June 20, 2023 judgment of the Sylvania Municipal Court
finding them in default of their residential lease agreement with appellee, Landis
Properties 1, LLC, and granting Landis’ request for a writ of restitution of the property.
For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On June 18, 2021, the Sheehans and Landis entered into a residential
purchase agreement wherein Landis agreed to sell the Sheehans property located at 128
North Harefoote Road in Springfield Township, Lucas County, Ohio, for the sum of
$121,540. The sale would take place within 12 months or when the Sheehans were able
to secure financing for up to 24 months from the date of signing. The parties entered into
a residential lease agreement for the same property. The lease required monthly
payments of $1,475 from June 18, 2021, until June 17, 2022. Thereafter, if the Sheehans
had not yet purchased the property, the lease would convert to a month-to-month tenancy
at a monthly rate of $1,534.
{¶ 3} On May 2, 2023, Landis filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer.
The complaint alleged that the Sheehans were delinquent on their rental payments.
Landis claimed it was owed $5,386 in unpaid rent and late fees as of the date of the
complaint. Landis attached the deed, lease agreement, payment ledger, the 30-day notice,
and the 3-day notice required under R.C. 1923.04. The Sheehans did not file an answer
to the complaint.
{¶ 4} On June 15, 2023, the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. The
parties discussed whether the court had jurisdiction over the proceeding. The court’s
bailiff investigated the matter and Landis stated that the deed, attached to its complaint,
reflected that the property was located in Springfield Township, Lucas County, Ohio.
Landis called two witnesses. First it presented the testimony of the process server who
2. on February 27, 2023, served the Sheehans with the 30-day notice to leave the residence
and on April 4, 2023, posted the 3-day notice to vacate on the door of the residence.
Landis then presented testimony of an iLink Real Estate Company employee who
reviewed the paperwork in preparation for trial. The employee denied that he
“represented” Landis but stated that American Destiny, a company he works with
concerning the sale of bank-owned properties, asked him to testify. He was not sure of
the relationship between American Destiny and Landis. The ledger provided to the
employee showed that the Sheehans stopped making payments in September 2022. The
employee testified that the Sheehans defaulted on the lease agreement.
{¶ 5} At the request of Landis’ counsel, the trial court admitted all documents
attached to the complaint into evidence. The documents admitted included the deed
evidencing Landis’ ownership of the property, the residential lease and purchase
agreements, the rental payment ledger, and the 30-day and 3-day notices.
{¶ 6} The trial court questioned the Sheehans regarding the residential purchase
agreement. Hope Sheehan stated that as of July 2022, they had $13,000 of equity in the
premises. The Sheehans admitted that the signatures on the lease agreement “could be”
or were “possibly” theirs. Hope stated that Landis was aware of their financial
difficulties and that Landis terminated their access to a payment portal, which prevented
them from making any further payments.
{¶ 7} On June 20, 2023, the trial court found the Sheehans in default of the terms
of the lease agreement, determined that under R.C. 5313.07 they had not paid more than
3. 20 percent of the purchase price and had not made payments for 5 years,1 and ordered the
issuance of a writ of restitution. This appeal followed.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} The Sheehans raise the following assignment of error
1. The trial court abused its discretion by allowing the testimony of
an expert witness when the witness did not have specialized knowledge,
skill, experience, or training regarding the subject matter of the testimony.
The court also allowed a representative of the court (attorney Austin B.
Barnes) to present a case he had no prior knowledge of before walking into
court. We also believe Sylvania municipal court doesn’t have jurisdiction
over this case.
III. Analysis
{¶ 9} The Sheehans’ sole assignment of error raises multiple arguments. The
court will first address their argument that Sylvania Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction
over this case. Municipal courts have jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer actions
pursuant to R.C. Chapter 1923. Additionally, “[t]he Sylvania municipal court has
jurisdiction * * * within those portions of Swanton, Monclova, and Springfield townships
lying north of the northerly boundary line of the Ohio turnpike, in Lucas County.” R.C.
1 R.C. 5313.07 requires the commencement of a foreclosure, rather than an eviction, in cases where the buyer in a land installment contract has paid for a five-year period or has paid 20 percent of the total sum.
4. 1901.02(B). Here, the subject property is located within trial court’s territorial
jurisdiction, and therefore, it had jurisdiction over this case.
{¶ 10} The Sheehans also maintain that the trial court abused its discretion by
allowing two expert witnesses to testify absent evidence of their specialized knowledge.
The admission or exclusion of witness testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial
court. State v. Walton, 2023-Ohio-1101, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Tuggle, 2010-
Ohio-4162, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.); Evid.R. 701.
{¶ 11} Landis presented the testimony of two witnesses: a process server and an
employee of iLink. The process server testified as a fact witness, not as an expert, as his
testimony was based on personal knowledge regarding the case. The iLink employee was
also a fact witness. When the trial court questioned the basis of the iLink employee’s
knowledge, Landis’ attorney explained that Landis, a New York company registered to
do business in Ohio, contracted with a local company affiliated with iLink and that is
how the employee received the documents to review prior to the hearing. Upon review,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion allowing testimony from these witnesses.
{¶ 12} The Sheehans further argue that Landis’ attorney lacked knowledge of the
facts of the case and was not qualified to testify at trial. They point to the fact that he
initially filed the matter in Toledo Municipal Court where it was dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction. The record reflects the parties’ and the trial court’s uncertainty as to whether
the Sylvania Municipal Court had jurisdiction over the action. The issue was resolved
and Landis’ attorney made an opening statement demonstrating familiarity with the
5. factual background of the case. The court subsequently questioned the attorney who
stated that he authored the 30-day and 3-day letters on behalf of Landis. Thus, Landis’
attorney had sufficient knowledge of the facts at issue.
{¶ 13} Finally, the Sheehans contend that following their payment lapse, Landis
disabled their client portal and prevented them from making additional payments. In
support, the Sheehans attached several documents to their appellate brief that were not
made part of the record in the proceedings below.
{¶ 14} Appellate review of a trial court’s order is limited to the record made in the
trial court. Salpietro v. Salpietro, 2023-Ohio-169, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.), citing Fifth Third Bank
v. Fin. S. Office Partners, Ltd., 2010-Ohio-5638, *3 (2d Dist.). The record that we can
consider is “‘the record as it existed at the time the trial court rendered judgment.’” Id.,
quoting Leiby v. Univ. of Akron, 2006-Ohio-2831, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). Accordingly, this
court cannot consider any exhibits attached to a party’s briefs that were not made part of
the trial court’s record. Id., citing Star Mgt., LLC v. Fayne, 2014-Ohio-2319, ¶ 7 (6th
Dist.).
{¶ 15} Upon review, the hearing testimony and properly admitted exhibits do not
support the Sheehans’ contention. The evidence demonstrated that they stopped paying
rent in September 2022, and that they were in default on the lease. The 30-day notice
was served on February 27, 2023, and the 3-day notice was served on April 4, 2023.
6. {¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err by granting Landis’
request for a writ of restitution of the real property at issue. The Sheehans’ assignment of
error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 17} The June 20, 2023 judgment of the Sylvania Municipal Court is affirmed.
Pursuant to App.R. 24, the Sheehans are ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, J. _______________________________ Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
7.