The duty to pay to claimants the amounts and in the order of preference, as provided in sections 1311.29 and 1311.31 of the Revised Code, may be enforced by an action in the court of common pleas or the subcontractor, material supplier, or laborer may, when the amounts are due, recover through the public authority in the court of common pleas the whole or a pro rata amount of the subcontractor's, material supplier's, or laborer's claim or estimate, not exceeding in any case the balance due to the principal contractor. Either of these actions shall be brought in the county in which the public property involved is situated, except that actions against state officers shall be brought only in Franklin county. The court shall resolve all disputes concerning whether the affidavit filed pursuant to section 1311.26 of the Revised Code has been perfected and concerning priorities, that may arise from enforcement of the affidavit or the bond that secures the affidavit, pursuant to section 1311.311 of the Revised Code.
Wandling v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 604 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3ד” See R.C. 1311.32. After a review of the foregoing, we find the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter the March 20, 1991 judgment.”
L.E. Myers Co. v. Jordano Elec. Co., 547 N.E.2d 1014 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3דThe principal contractor must give notice of its intention to dispute the claim within ten days of its receipt.”
Ohio Ex Rel. Star Supply, Div. of Star Indus., Inc. v. City of Greenfield, 528 F. Supp. 955 (S.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 2דPORTER, Senior District Judge: This action was commenced by a “Complaint in Mandamus,” pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 1311.32, in the Court of Common Pleas of Highland County, Ohio.”
Akron Concrete Corp. v. Medina City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2012 Ohio 2971 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3ד{¶14} There is no evidence that Akron Concrete made a demand on the School Board to release the funds to it at any time before 2009.”
Poenisch v. Kingsley-Dunbar, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “Finally, R.C. 1311.32 provides the lienholder with remedies to enforce the owner's duty to pay.”
State ex rel. Dinneen Excavating Co. v. Sykes, 531 N.E.2d 1309 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3ד) Finally, R.C. 1311.32 provides that the duty to pay lien claimants the amounts and in order of preference provided may be enforced by an action in mandamus or the subcontractor may, when such amounts are due, recover against the owner the whole claim or pro-rata share of the…”
First Response Metering, LLC v. City of Wilmington (S.D. Ohio 2021). · cites it 9דWilmington moves to dismiss First Response’s Amended Complaint, arguing that: (1) First Response fails to state a claim because Ohio Rev. Code § 1311.32 and § 1311.311 mandate exclusive jurisdiction for First Response’s cause of action in state court; and/or (2) this Court…”
City of Cincinnati v. Scheer & Scheer Dev., 862 N.E.2d 122 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “{¶ 33} As R.C. 1311.32 indicates, “a public works lien operates on, and only on, the fund[s] due or to become due to the principal contractor.”
Neal-Crane Co. v. Trio Constr. Servs., Inc., 583 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2דBecause R.C. 1311.32 limits Trio’s recovery by virtue of the lien claims assigned by Elgee and Loeb to actions against the owner, the stay provisions of Section 362(a)(5), Title 11, U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.