Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1925
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02 (2026)

Jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 9, 2025
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 237 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(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. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bierlein v. Alex's Cont'l Inn, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 13× “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.”
Klemas v. Flynn, 611 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 10× “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 15× “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 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 2× “R.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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “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.”
Lin v. Reid, 464 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “” 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “{¶ 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. 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “1 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Auld because small claims divisions do not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages.”
Lovejoy v. Diel, 2021 Ohio 1124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “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…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A) — 5 cases
Mustafa v. Al-Bayer, 2020 Ohio 1315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Rosalind Holmes v. Cobblestone Grove, 2017 Ohio 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 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.”
Bretz v. Nagy, 2016 Ohio 3008 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
DJL, Inc. v. Massingille, 2011 Ohio 6281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(1) — 20 cases
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022 Ohio 3282 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “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 (Ohio 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. 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “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…”
Small v. Stubub, Inc., 2016 Ohio 3438 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
Bragg v. Maroti, 2015 Ohio 4830 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2) — 5 cases
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. 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “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.”
Klemas v. Flynn, 1993 Ohio 45 (Ohio 1993).
McCrown v. Eichenberger, 2022 Ohio 2861 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Coleman, 2019 Ohio 432 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “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.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(a) — 3 cases
Horn v. Cherian, 2023 Ohio 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Scott v. Dohse, 2011 Ohio 2190 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “1 R.C. 1925.02(A)(1). The small-claims division also lacked jurisdiction over some of the claims filed by Dohse and Stewart.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(a)(i) — 5 cases
Mustafa v. Al-Bayer, 2020 Ohio 1315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Brake v. Dolezal, 2025 Ohio 338 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Millbrook Assn., Inc. v. Wills, 2025 Ohio 5108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Fugo v. Rae, 2026 Ohio 834 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(a)(ii) — 2 cases
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Coleman, 2019 Ohio 432 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Auld because small claims divisions do not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages.”
Spellman v. Kirchner, 2020 Ohio 3240 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Bonesteel v. Nash, 2016 Ohio 3114 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(c) — 3 cases
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.”
Klemas v. Flynn, 1993 Ohio 45 (Ohio 1993).
Bonesteel v. Nash, 2016 Ohio 3114 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(ii) — 2 cases
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2022 Ohio 3282 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “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.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(2)(iii) — 1 case
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St. 3d 136 (Ohio 2005). “R.C. 1925.02(A)(1) and (2)(a)(i). Claims for punitive damages, exemplary damages, and prejudgment attachment are not permitted.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(A)(3) — 1 case
Beckett v. Wisniewski, 2009 Ohio 6158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(B) — 3 cases
Bierlein v. Alex's Cont'l Inn, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio Ct. App. 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.”
DJL, Inc. v. Massingille, 2011 Ohio 6281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Geothermal Professionals, Ltd. v. Kozlowski, 2025 Ohio 1598 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(B)(2)(ii) — 1 case
Baltimore v. Ansel, 2017 Ohio 7347 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(C) — 4 cases
Rick's Foreign Exch. Co. v. Greenlee, 2014 Ohio 4505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 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.”
DJL, Inc. v. Massingille, 2011 Ohio 6281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
E-Z Cash Pawn Shop, Inc. v. Minor, 2017 Ohio 4405 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.02(D) — 1 case
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
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.