[Cite as Williams Pointe Holdings, L.L.C. v. Rude, 2025-Ohio-133.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
WILLIAMS POINTE HOLDINGS, LLC, : CASE NO. CA2024-06-041 Appellant, : OPINION : 1/21/2025 - vs - :
ERIN RUDE, :
Appellee. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 2024 CVG 00936
Heyman Law, LLC, and Matthew W. Faber and D. Andrew Heyman, for appellant.
Erin Rude, pro se.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Williams Pointe Holdings, LLC ("Williams Pointe"), appeals a
decision of the Clermont County Municipal Court dismissing its forcible entry and detainer
complaint against appellee, Erin Rude.1
1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(A), we sua sponte remove this appeal from the accelerated calendar. Clermont CA2024-06-041
{¶ 2} Rude is a tenant of Williams Pointe in residential premises in Williamsburg,
Ohio. On March 21, 2024, based upon criminal activity originating from the premises
and Rude allowing Scott Hill to reside with her on the premises, Williams Pointe served
Rude with two notices stapled together. One notice was a three-day notice to leave the
premises for "breach of the lease: criminal activity and unauthorized occupants." The
other notice was a 30-day notice to cure quiet and peaceful enjoyment violations. The
three-day notice included language advising Rude that
THIS NOTICE IS INDEPENDENT AND ACTIONABLE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE NOTICE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SERVED WITH IT FOR QUIET AND PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT VIOLATIONS (ALSO POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2024). IF YOU DO NOT RELINQUISH THE PREMISES TO YOUR LANDLORD WITHIN THE THREE DAYS ALLOTTED BY THIS NOTICE, AN EVICTION ACTION WILL BE FILED AGAINST YOU BASED ON THIS NOTICE.
{¶ 3} Rude failed to vacate the premises within three days of the service of the
three-day notice upon her. Consequently, on April 9, 2024, Williams Pointe filed a forcible
entry and detainer ("FED") action in the municipal court against Rude. The three-day
notice was attached to the complaint.
{¶ 4} A hearing was held on the FED action before a magistrate. Rude admitted
that the police were called to the premises multiple times, which were "at a minimum a
nuisance," and that Hill was residing with her on the premises. Rude acknowledged that
the two notices were served upon her on the same day. She testified, however, that she
was confused by the two notices and that therefore, she relied upon the 30-day notice.
Hill also testified and admitted he was residing on the premises.
{¶ 5} On May 6, 2024, the magistrate issued a decision dismissing Williams
Pointe's FED action. The magistrate found that Rude was not served a proper notice
because the two notices were served contemporaneously, thus preventing the magistrate
-2- Clermont CA2024-06-041
from determining which notice was controlling. The magistrate's decision also advised
the parties that objections to the magistrate's decision "must be filed with the Clerk of
Courts within 14 days from the filing of the Magistrate's Decision. Said objections must
comply with [Civ.R.] 53(D)(3)(b)(ii)(iii)." On May 7, 2024, the municipal court adopted the
magistrate's decision and dismissed Williams Pointe's FED action with prejudice.
{¶ 6} Williams Pointe filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The objections
included a reference to the 30-day notice and stated that this notice, like the 3-day notice
attached to the FED complaint, advised Rude that "THIS NOTICE IS INDEPENDENT
AND ACTIONABLE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE NOTICE
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SERVED WITH IT FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND
UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2024. A SEPARATE
EVICTION ACTION MAY BE INITIATED PURSUANT TO THIS NOTICE." The 30-day
notice was neither attached to the FED complaint nor introduced as evidence in the FED
hearing. However, counsel for Williams Pointe read the above advisement during the
hearing in response to a question by the magistrate.
{¶ 7} On May 29, 2024, the municipal court overruled Williams Pointe's objections
to the magistrate's decision, finding that Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) objections were inapplicable
to FED actions pursuant to this court's opinion in Suburban Realty L.P. v. MD Vape &
Tobacco, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3198 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 8} Williams Pointe now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING IN FAVOR OF RUDE AND
AGAINST WILLIAMS POINTE THAT THE SERVICE OF A THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO
CURE INVALIDATED A THREE-DAY NOTICE TO VACATE.
{¶ 11} Williams Pointe argues the municipal court erred in dismissing its FED
-3- Clermont CA2024-06-041
complaint against Rude.
{¶ 12} R.C. Chapter 1923 governs FED actions. R.C. 1923.04(A) provides in
pertinent part that
a party desiring to commence an action under this chapter shall notify the adverse party to leave the premises, for the possession of which the action is about to be brought, three or more days before beginning the action, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by handing a written copy of the notice to the defendant in person, or by leaving it at the defendant's usual place of abode or at the premises from which the defendant is sought to be evicted.
{¶ 13} R.C. 1923.02(A) lists persons subject to an FED action, which includes
"tenants who have breached an obligation that is imposed by [R.C.] 5321.05, other than
the obligation specified in division (A)(9) of that section, and that materially affects health
and safety," and "tenants who have breached an obligation imposed upon them by a
written rental agreement." R.C. 1923.02(A)(8) and (9). A three-day notice under R.C.
1923.04(A) is a statutory prerequisite to filing an FED action. Voyager Village Ltd. v.
Williams, 3 Ohio App.3d 288, 290 (2d Dist. 1982).
{¶ 14} Two statutory provisions of the Revised Code require a 30-day termination
notice: R.C. 5321.11 and 5321.17(B). R.C. 5321.17, which allows landlords to terminate
periodic tenancies, is not applicable here because Rude was subject to an eight-month
lease which was to expire in July 2024. R.C. 5321.11 provides in pertinent part that
If the tenant fails to fulfill any obligation imposed upon him by [R.C.] 5321.05 that materially affects health and safety, other than the obligation specified in division (A)(9) of that section, the landlord may deliver a written notice of this fact to the tenant . . . specifying that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date specified in the notice, not less than thirty days after receipt of the notice.
R.C. 5321.05 lists a tenant's obligations, including to "[c]onduct himself and require other
persons on the premises with his consent to conduct themselves in a manner that will not
-4- Clermont CA2024-06-041
disturb his neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of the premises." R.C. 5321.05(A)(8).
{¶ 15} Rude was served with a three-day notice to leave the premises "for breach
of the lease and addenda: criminal activity and unauthorized occupants." The notice is
an R.C. 1923.04(A) three-day notice. Rude was also served with a thirty-day notice to
cure quiet and peaceful enjoyment violations. That notice was an R.C. 5321.11 notice.
See also R.C. 5321.05(A)(8). Williams Pointe alleged in its FED complaint that Rude had
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Williams Pointe Holdings, L.L.C. v. Rude, 2025-Ohio-133.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
WILLIAMS POINTE HOLDINGS, LLC, : CASE NO. CA2024-06-041 Appellant, : OPINION : 1/21/2025 - vs - :
ERIN RUDE, :
Appellee. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 2024 CVG 00936
Heyman Law, LLC, and Matthew W. Faber and D. Andrew Heyman, for appellant.
Erin Rude, pro se.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Williams Pointe Holdings, LLC ("Williams Pointe"), appeals a
decision of the Clermont County Municipal Court dismissing its forcible entry and detainer
complaint against appellee, Erin Rude.1
1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(A), we sua sponte remove this appeal from the accelerated calendar. Clermont CA2024-06-041
{¶ 2} Rude is a tenant of Williams Pointe in residential premises in Williamsburg,
Ohio. On March 21, 2024, based upon criminal activity originating from the premises
and Rude allowing Scott Hill to reside with her on the premises, Williams Pointe served
Rude with two notices stapled together. One notice was a three-day notice to leave the
premises for "breach of the lease: criminal activity and unauthorized occupants." The
other notice was a 30-day notice to cure quiet and peaceful enjoyment violations. The
three-day notice included language advising Rude that
THIS NOTICE IS INDEPENDENT AND ACTIONABLE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE NOTICE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SERVED WITH IT FOR QUIET AND PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT VIOLATIONS (ALSO POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2024). IF YOU DO NOT RELINQUISH THE PREMISES TO YOUR LANDLORD WITHIN THE THREE DAYS ALLOTTED BY THIS NOTICE, AN EVICTION ACTION WILL BE FILED AGAINST YOU BASED ON THIS NOTICE.
{¶ 3} Rude failed to vacate the premises within three days of the service of the
three-day notice upon her. Consequently, on April 9, 2024, Williams Pointe filed a forcible
entry and detainer ("FED") action in the municipal court against Rude. The three-day
notice was attached to the complaint.
{¶ 4} A hearing was held on the FED action before a magistrate. Rude admitted
that the police were called to the premises multiple times, which were "at a minimum a
nuisance," and that Hill was residing with her on the premises. Rude acknowledged that
the two notices were served upon her on the same day. She testified, however, that she
was confused by the two notices and that therefore, she relied upon the 30-day notice.
Hill also testified and admitted he was residing on the premises.
{¶ 5} On May 6, 2024, the magistrate issued a decision dismissing Williams
Pointe's FED action. The magistrate found that Rude was not served a proper notice
because the two notices were served contemporaneously, thus preventing the magistrate
-2- Clermont CA2024-06-041
from determining which notice was controlling. The magistrate's decision also advised
the parties that objections to the magistrate's decision "must be filed with the Clerk of
Courts within 14 days from the filing of the Magistrate's Decision. Said objections must
comply with [Civ.R.] 53(D)(3)(b)(ii)(iii)." On May 7, 2024, the municipal court adopted the
magistrate's decision and dismissed Williams Pointe's FED action with prejudice.
{¶ 6} Williams Pointe filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The objections
included a reference to the 30-day notice and stated that this notice, like the 3-day notice
attached to the FED complaint, advised Rude that "THIS NOTICE IS INDEPENDENT
AND ACTIONABLE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE NOTICE
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SERVED WITH IT FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND
UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2024. A SEPARATE
EVICTION ACTION MAY BE INITIATED PURSUANT TO THIS NOTICE." The 30-day
notice was neither attached to the FED complaint nor introduced as evidence in the FED
hearing. However, counsel for Williams Pointe read the above advisement during the
hearing in response to a question by the magistrate.
{¶ 7} On May 29, 2024, the municipal court overruled Williams Pointe's objections
to the magistrate's decision, finding that Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) objections were inapplicable
to FED actions pursuant to this court's opinion in Suburban Realty L.P. v. MD Vape &
Tobacco, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3198 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 8} Williams Pointe now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING IN FAVOR OF RUDE AND
AGAINST WILLIAMS POINTE THAT THE SERVICE OF A THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO
CURE INVALIDATED A THREE-DAY NOTICE TO VACATE.
{¶ 11} Williams Pointe argues the municipal court erred in dismissing its FED
-3- Clermont CA2024-06-041
complaint against Rude.
{¶ 12} R.C. Chapter 1923 governs FED actions. R.C. 1923.04(A) provides in
pertinent part that
a party desiring to commence an action under this chapter shall notify the adverse party to leave the premises, for the possession of which the action is about to be brought, three or more days before beginning the action, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by handing a written copy of the notice to the defendant in person, or by leaving it at the defendant's usual place of abode or at the premises from which the defendant is sought to be evicted.
{¶ 13} R.C. 1923.02(A) lists persons subject to an FED action, which includes
"tenants who have breached an obligation that is imposed by [R.C.] 5321.05, other than
the obligation specified in division (A)(9) of that section, and that materially affects health
and safety," and "tenants who have breached an obligation imposed upon them by a
written rental agreement." R.C. 1923.02(A)(8) and (9). A three-day notice under R.C.
1923.04(A) is a statutory prerequisite to filing an FED action. Voyager Village Ltd. v.
Williams, 3 Ohio App.3d 288, 290 (2d Dist. 1982).
{¶ 14} Two statutory provisions of the Revised Code require a 30-day termination
notice: R.C. 5321.11 and 5321.17(B). R.C. 5321.17, which allows landlords to terminate
periodic tenancies, is not applicable here because Rude was subject to an eight-month
lease which was to expire in July 2024. R.C. 5321.11 provides in pertinent part that
If the tenant fails to fulfill any obligation imposed upon him by [R.C.] 5321.05 that materially affects health and safety, other than the obligation specified in division (A)(9) of that section, the landlord may deliver a written notice of this fact to the tenant . . . specifying that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date specified in the notice, not less than thirty days after receipt of the notice.
R.C. 5321.05 lists a tenant's obligations, including to "[c]onduct himself and require other
persons on the premises with his consent to conduct themselves in a manner that will not
-4- Clermont CA2024-06-041
disturb his neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of the premises." R.C. 5321.05(A)(8).
{¶ 15} Rude was served with a three-day notice to leave the premises "for breach
of the lease and addenda: criminal activity and unauthorized occupants." The notice is
an R.C. 1923.04(A) three-day notice. Rude was also served with a thirty-day notice to
cure quiet and peaceful enjoyment violations. That notice was an R.C. 5321.11 notice.
See also R.C. 5321.05(A)(8). Williams Pointe alleged in its FED complaint that Rude had
breached an obligation imposed upon her under the lease agreement on grounds of
"criminal activity, unauthorized occupants." Unlike a tenant who has breached an
obligation "imposed by [R.C.] 5321.05 . . . that materially affects health and safety," an
R.C. 5321.11 notice is not a prerequisite to serving a three-day notice and commencing
an FED action against a tenant for breaching an obligation imposed by the written rental
agreement. Thus, Rude was subject to an FED action upon proper service of the R.C.
1923.04 three-day notice.
{¶ 16} The record plainly shows that the notices served upon Rude were separate
notices governed by different chapters of the Revised Code (R.C. Chapters 1923 and
5321), that they were independent of one another–a three-day notice to vacate the
premises for breach of the lease agreement and a 30-day notice to cure quiet and
peaceful enjoyment violations–and that the language in the notices advised Rude of this
fact. Thus, Rude was properly notified that she had three days to vacate the premises.
The R.C. 1923.04 notice properly invoked the municipal court's FED jurisdiction and the
municipal court erred in holding otherwise and failing to consider the merits of the case.
{¶ 17} Williams Pointe's first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 19} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN STATING IN ITS MAGISTRATE'S
DECISION THAT WILLIAMS POINTE HAD THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
-5- Clermont CA2024-06-041
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION ONLY TO LATER DENY SAID RIGHT.
{¶ 20} Williams Pointe argues the municipal court erred by overruling its objections
to the magistrate's decision because it filed the Civ.R. 53(D) objections as directed by the
notice in the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 21} Forcible entry and detainer, as authorized in R.C. Chapter 1923, is a
summary proceeding and is intended to serve as an expedited mechanism by which an
aggrieved landlord may recover possession of real property. Miele v. Ribovich, 2000-
Ohio-193, ¶ 10. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to forcible entry and detainer
actions to the extent they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable. Civ.R. 1(C)(3).
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a different provision of Civ.R. 53, the automatic
stay provision, does not apply to FED actions. Colonial Am. Dev. Co. v. Griffin, 48 Ohio
St.3d 72 (1990), syllabus. The supreme court based its decision on the potential for delay
in applying the Civ.R. 53 automatic stay provision in FED actions. We recently held that
"in light of the holding in Griffin, the objection provisions of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) are, by their
nature, 'clearly inapplicable' to FED proceedings due to their summary nature." Suburban
Realty, 2023-Ohio-3198, ¶ 30-31. In light of this court's foregoing holding, the municipal
court did not err in overruling Williams Pointe's objections to the magistrate's decision,
notwithstanding the objections notice in the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 22} Williams Pointe's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Judgment reversed and remanded for the municipal court to rule upon the
merits of Williams Pointe's FED complaint against Rude.
BYRNE, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-6-