(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, a small claims division established under section 1925.01 of the Revised Code has jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of taxes and money only, for amounts not exceeding six thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
(2)(a) A small claims division does not have jurisdiction in any of the following:
(i) Libel, slander, replevin, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process actions;
(ii) Actions on any claim brought by an assignee or agent, except a claim to recover taxes that is filed by any authorized employee of a political subdivision or any authorized officer or employee of the state or a claim filed by a person designated under section 1925.18 of the Revised Code to act as the representative of a prosecuting attorney;
(iii) Actions for the recovery of punitive or exemplary damages.
(b) Division (A)(2)(a) of this section does not exclude either of the following:
(i) Actions for the recovery of damages specifically authorized by division (B) of either section 1345.09 or 1345.48 of the Revised Code from the jurisdiction of a small claims division;
(ii) The filing or defense of an action by the holder of a security agreement or retail installment contract, purchased by the holder for the holder's portfolio of investments, provided that the holder is not an assignee for the purpose of collection.
(3) The territorial jurisdiction and venue of a small claims division are concurrent with that of the respective court under its procedures in ordinary civil actions. Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant may not be obtained by any form of published or substituted service or warrant of attorney.
(B) A counterclaim or cross-claim of six thousand dollars or less does not affect the jurisdiction of a small claims division. If a counterclaim or cross-claim exceeds six thousand dollars and if the case is transferred to the regular docket of the court, the court, if it finds that the counterclaim or cross-claim was without substantial grounds, may award reasonable attorney's fees by special order to the party against whom the counterclaim or cross-claim is instituted, if that party prevails in the action on that claim.
(C) Any person who files a counterclaim or cross-claim shall file it with the small claims division and serve it on all other parties at least seven days prior to the date of the trial of the plaintiff's claim in the original action.
(D) It is the intent of the general assembly in enacting division (A)(2)(b)(ii) of this section to clarify that the filing of such an action in a small claims division established under section 1925.01 of the Revised Code was not prohibited prior to the effective date of this amendment, and is not prohibited, provided the holder is not an assignee for the purpose of collection.
(E) As used in this section:
(1) "Person" has the same meaning as in division (C) of section 1.59 of the Revised Code and also includes governmental entities.
(2) "Political subdivision" and "employee" of a political subdivision have the same meanings as in section 2744.01 of the Revised Code.
(3) "State" has the same meaning as in section 109.36 of the Revised Code.
(4) "Officer or employee of the state" means any person who is serving in an elected or appointed office or position with the state or is employed by the state. "Officer or employee of the state" does not include any person elected, appointed, or employed by any political subdivision.
(5) "Retail installment contract" and "security agreement" have the same meanings as in section 1317.01 of the Revised Code.
Last updated January 22, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Bierlein v. Alex's Cont'l Inn, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1984).
Bierlein v. Alex's Cont'l Inn, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1984). · cites it 13דThis statute became effective on August 20, 1982, long after the counterclaim was filed and case transferred to the regular docket of the municipal court.”
Klemas v. Flynn, 611 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 10דOn the other hand, the Tenth Appellate District based its decisions in Kortyna and Raymond on the 1984 amendment to R.C. 1925.02. (140 Ohio *253 Laws, Part II, 3607-3608.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022-Ohio-3282. · cites it 15דThe drafters of R.C. 1925.02 could have limited the prohibition on assignments to, for example, assignments that occurred after the cause of action accrued.”
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St. 3d 136 (2005). · cites it 2דR.C. 1925.02(A)(1) and (2)(a)(i). Claims for punitive damages, exemplary damages, and prejudgment attachment are not permitted.”
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-432. · cites it 5דColeman also argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 1925.02(A)(2)(A)(ii) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”
Lin v. Reid, 464 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). · cites it 2ד” It is apparent from the motion to certify that defendant was relying on the monetary amount in excess of the small claims court jurisdiction of $1,500 (R.C. 1925.02[B]). Our understanding of the term “exceeding” the jurisdiction of a court, when couched in monetary terms, is…”
Rick's Foreign Exch. Co. v. Greenlee, 2014-Ohio-4505. · cites it 2ד{¶ 18} R.C. 1925.02(C) states that: “Any person who files a counterclaim or cross-claim shall file it with the small claims division and serve it on all other parties at least seven days prior to the date of the trial of the plaintiff’s claim in the original action.”
Blosser v. Carter, 586 N.E.2d 253 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990). “Thus, a claimant who discovers, during trial, that she is entitled to additional damages may freely amend her demand subject only to the jurisdictional limitation of R.C. 1925.02(A)(1). Thus, the damages-limitation rule of Civ.”
Scott v. Dohse, 2011-Ohio-2190, 956 N.E.2d 363. · cites it 2ד1 R.C. 1925.02(A)(1). The small-claims division also lacked jurisdiction over some of the claims filed by Dohse and Stewart.”
Rosalind Holmes v. Cobblestone Grove, 2017-Ohio-55. · cites it 4ד{¶ 14} Pursuant to R.C.1925.02(A), a small claims division of a municipal court has jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of amounts not exceeding $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”
Germadnik v. Auld, 2018-Ohio-2889. “Auld because small claims divisions do not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages.”
Lovejoy v. Diel, 2021-Ohio-1124. “ract has paid in accordance with the terms of the contract for a period of five years or more from the date of the first payment or has paid toward the purchase price a total sum equal to or in excess of twenty per cent thereof, the vendor may recover possession of his property…”
Rosalind Holmes v. Cobblestone Grove, 2017-Ohio-55. “{¶ 14} Pursuant to R.C.1925.02(A), a small claims division of a municipal court has jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of amounts not exceeding $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022-Ohio-3282. “The drafters of R.C. 1925.02 could have limited the prohibition on assignments to, for example, assignments that occurred after the cause of action accrued.”
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St. 3d 136 (2005). “R.C. 1925.02(A)(1) and (2)(a)(i). Claims for punitive damages, exemplary damages, and prejudgment attachment are not permitted.”
Blosser v. Carter, 586 N.E.2d 253 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990). “Thus, a claimant who discovers, during trial, that she is entitled to additional damages may freely amend her demand subject only to the jurisdictional limitation of R.C. 1925.02(A)(1). Thus, the damages-limitation rule of Civ.”
Lovejoy v. Diel, 2021-Ohio-1124. “ract has paid in accordance with the terms of the contract for a period of five years or more from the date of the first payment or has paid toward the purchase price a total sum equal to or in excess of twenty per cent thereof, the vendor may recover possession of his property…”
Klemas v. Flynn, 611 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio 1993). “On the other hand, the Tenth Appellate District based its decisions in Kortyna and Raymond on the 1984 amendment to R.C. 1925.02. (140 Ohio *253 Laws, Part II, 3607-3608.”
Lin v. Reid, 464 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). “” It is apparent from the motion to certify that defendant was relying on the monetary amount in excess of the small claims court jurisdiction of $1,500 (R.C. 1925.02[B]). Our understanding of the term “exceeding” the jurisdiction of a court, when couched in monetary terms, is…”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022-Ohio-3282. “The drafters of R.C. 1925.02 could have limited the prohibition on assignments to, for example, assignments that occurred after the cause of action accrued.”
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-432. “Coleman also argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 1925.02(A)(2)(A)(ii) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”
Scott v. Dohse, 2011-Ohio-2190, 956 N.E.2d 363. “1 R.C. 1925.02(A)(1). The small-claims division also lacked jurisdiction over some of the claims filed by Dohse and Stewart.”
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-432. “Coleman also argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 1925.02(A)(2)(A)(ii) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022-Ohio-3282. “The drafters of R.C. 1925.02 could have limited the prohibition on assignments to, for example, assignments that occurred after the cause of action accrued.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(a)(iii): 3 cases
Germadnik v. Auld, 2018-Ohio-2889. “Auld because small claims divisions do not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages.”
Klemas v. Flynn, 611 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio 1993). “On the other hand, the Tenth Appellate District based its decisions in Kortyna and Raymond on the 1984 amendment to R.C. 1925.02. (140 Ohio *253 Laws, Part II, 3607-3608.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022-Ohio-3282. “The drafters of R.C. 1925.02 could have limited the prohibition on assignments to, for example, assignments that occurred after the cause of action accrued.”
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St. 3d 136 (2005). “R.C. 1925.02(A)(1) and (2)(a)(i). Claims for punitive damages, exemplary damages, and prejudgment attachment are not permitted.”
Bierlein v. Alex's Cont'l Inn, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1984). “This statute became effective on August 20, 1982, long after the counterclaim was filed and case transferred to the regular docket of the municipal court.”
Rick's Foreign Exch. Co. v. Greenlee, 2014-Ohio-4505. “{¶ 18} R.C. 1925.02(C) states that: “Any person who files a counterclaim or cross-claim shall file it with the small claims division and serve it on all other parties at least seven days prior to the date of the trial of the plaintiff’s claim in the original action.”
Rosalind Holmes v. Cobblestone Grove, 2017-Ohio-55. “{¶ 14} Pursuant to R.C.1925.02(A), a small claims division of a municipal court has jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of amounts not exceeding $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”
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.