(A) Any defense in an action under this chapter may be asserted at trial.
(B) In an action for possession of residential premises based upon nonpayment of the rent or in an action for rent when the tenant or manufactured home park resident is in possession, the tenant or resident may counterclaim for any amount the tenant or resident may recover under the rental agreement or under Chapter 4781. or 5321. of the Revised Code. In that event, the court from time to time may order the tenant or resident to pay into court all or part of the past due rent and rent becoming due during the pendency of the action. After trial and judgment, the party to whom a net judgment is owed shall be paid first from the money paid into court, and any balance shall be satisfied as any other judgment. If no rent remains due after application of this division, judgment shall be entered for the tenant or resident in the action for possession. If the tenant or resident has paid into court an amount greater than that necessary to satisfy a judgment obtained by the landlord, the balance shall be returned by the court to the tenant or resident.
Suburban Realty, L.P. v. MD Vape & Tobacco, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3198, 224 N.E.3d 598. · cites it 27ד1(C) and R.C. 1923.061, together, provide that MD was permitted to file its counterclaims at any time, even during trial, and that the trial court therefore erred in finding that the counterclaims were untimely filed.”
Schwab v. Lattimore, 848 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2006). · cites it 11דLattimore was permitted to adduce evidence of her alleged damages, and she requested an offset against her rent under R.C. 1923.061 because of the alleged defects in the property.”
Meyer v. Chieffo, 950 N.E.2d 1027 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011). · cites it 7דIn September 2007, the trial court ordered Chieffo to resume making payments under the contract either directly to Meyer or into the escrow account. The trial court also ordered that the funds in the escrow account were to be used to remediate the mold.”
Forney v. Climbing Higher Enter., Inc., 815 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2004). · cites it 3דThe legislative intent underlying R.C. 1923.061 was not to bar counterclaims in actions outside the scope of that section, but to preserve the tenant’s right to possession and guarantee the existence of a fund to settle the various claims.”
Shaffer v. Mease, 584 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991). · cites it 3דR.C. 1923.061. 3 Therefore, appellant had no obligation to orally notify appellee of his filing of the counterclaim one day prior to trial.”
Sandefur Mgmt. Co. v. Smith, 486 N.E.2d 1234 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). · cites it 21ד061(B), the preserving of that objection does not affect the application of the remaining portion of R.C. 1923.061. No issue of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in ordering the deposit has been raised by Sandefur upon this appeal, since Sandefur neither…”
Meyer v. Chieffo, 904 N.E.2d 560 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2008). · cites it 2ד” Thus, under R.C.1923.061, any defense to forcible entry and detainer may be asserted at trial, and a counterclaim may be interposed based upon nonpayment.”
Jemo Assocs., Inc. v. Garman, 436 N.E.2d 1353 (Ohio 1982). “081, 5 enacted in the same bill with R.C. 1923.061, appears to contemplate the possibility of counterclaims in any action in forcible entry and detainer for residential premises.”
Miller v. Ritchie, 543 N.E.2d 1265 (Ohio 1989). “The forcible entry and detainer statute, R.C. 1923.061(B), states: “In an action for possession of residential premises based upon nonpayment of the rent or in an action for rent when the tenant is in possession, the tenant may counterclaim for any amount he may *225 recover…”
Eckart v. Newman, 2019-Ohio-3211. “Therefore, all of Newman’s second assignment of error and his third assignment of error, with regard to specific defenses, are found not well-taken.”
Shelton v. Huff, 2014-Ohio-1344. · cites it 2ד{¶23} The foregoing finding that Huff was not permitted to file an answer and counterclaim prior to the forcible entry and detainer hearing did not prevent him from defending himself at the hearing, since he was allowed, under R.C. 1923.061, to raise 6 any defense at trial.”
Fay Gardens Mobile Home Park v. Newman, 470 N.E.2d 164 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1983). “R.C. 1923.061(B), relating to forcible entry and detainer actions, provides that: “* * * In an action for possession of residential premises based upon nonpayment of the rent or in an action for rent when the tenant is in possession, the tenant may counterclaim for any amount he…”
Suburban Realty, L.P. v. MD Vape & Tobacco, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3198, 224 N.E.3d 598. “1(C) and R.C. 1923.061, together, provide that MD was permitted to file its counterclaims at any time, even during trial, and that the trial court therefore erred in finding that the counterclaims were untimely filed.”
Meyer v. Chieffo, 904 N.E.2d 560 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2008). “” Thus, under R.C.1923.061, any defense to forcible entry and detainer may be asserted at trial, and a counterclaim may be interposed based upon nonpayment.”
Meyer v. Chieffo, 950 N.E.2d 1027 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011). “In September 2007, the trial court ordered Chieffo to resume making payments under the contract either directly to Meyer or into the escrow account. The trial court also ordered that the funds in the escrow account were to be used to remediate the mold.”
Suburban Realty, L.P. v. MD Vape & Tobacco, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3198, 224 N.E.3d 598. “1(C) and R.C. 1923.061, together, provide that MD was permitted to file its counterclaims at any time, even during trial, and that the trial court therefore erred in finding that the counterclaims were untimely filed.”
Schwab v. Lattimore, 848 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2006). “Lattimore was permitted to adduce evidence of her alleged damages, and she requested an offset against her rent under R.C. 1923.061 because of the alleged defects in the property.”
Forney v. Climbing Higher Enter., Inc., 815 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2004). “The legislative intent underlying R.C. 1923.061 was not to bar counterclaims in actions outside the scope of that section, but to preserve the tenant’s right to possession and guarantee the existence of a fund to settle the various claims.”
Sandefur Mgmt. Co. v. Smith, 486 N.E.2d 1234 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). “061(B), the preserving of that objection does not affect the application of the remaining portion of R.C. 1923.061. No issue of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in ordering the deposit has been raised by Sandefur upon this appeal, since Sandefur neither…”
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.