Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.41 (2026)

Defrauding a rental agency or hostelry

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

April 10, 2001

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 263 - 123rd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

In a prosecution of a person for a theft offense that alleges that the person, with purpose to defraud or knowing that the person was facilitating a fraud, hired or rented an aircraft, motor vehicle, motorcycle, motorboat, sailboat, camper, trailer, horse, buggy, or other property or equipment, kept or operated any of the same that has been hired or rented, or engaged accommodations at a hotel, motel, inn, campground, or other hostelry, it is prima-facie evidence of purpose to defraud if the person did any of the following:

(A) Used deception to induce the rental agency to furnish the person with the aircraft, motor vehicle, motorcycle, motorboat, sailboat, camper, trailer, horse, buggy, or other property or equipment, or used deception to induce the hostelry to furnish the person with accommodations;

(B) Hired or rented any aircraft, motor vehicle, motorcycle, motorboat, sailboat, camper, trailer, horse, buggy, or other property or equipment, or engaged accommodations, knowing the person was without sufficient means to pay the hire or rental;

(C) Absconded without paying the hire or rental;

(D) Knowingly failed to pay the hire or rental as required by the contract of hire or rental, without reasonable excuse for such failure;

(E) Knowingly failed to return hired or rented property as required by the contract of hire or rental, without reasonable excuse for the failure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: State v. Tolliver (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3744 (Ohio 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Tolliver (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3744 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 4× “41 of the Revised Code; (2) A violation of an existing or former municipal ordinance or law of this or any other state, or of the United States, substantially equivalent to any section listed in division (K)(1) of this section or a violation of section 2913.41, 2913.81, or…”

State v. Guice, 2024 Ohio 1914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “R.C. §2913.41. In this matter defendant was no longer in lawful possession of the rental vehicle once the lease term had expired.”

State v. Bentz, 442 N.E.2d 90 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). “01(K), whereby Bentz acquired possession of the automobile was defrauding a livery, R.C. 2913.41. We disagree. Defrauding a livery involves proof that at the moment when the vehicle was leased, the lessee or lessees had a purpose to defraud or knowledge that he or they were…”

State v. Daniels, 572 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Facts On June 17, 1986, the Lorain County Grand Jury indicted Andrew Daniels for defrauding a livery in violation of R.C. 2913.41. The indictment also specified that Daniels had three prior convictions for passing bad checks.”

State v. Starcher, 2023 Ohio 4854 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “71(A), a felony of the fifth degree)] 11 months as to Count 4 [receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.41(A), (C), and 2913.71(A), a felony of the fifth degree], and 11 months as to Count 6 [identity fraud in violation of R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.41(A) — 1 case

State v. Starcher, 2023 Ohio 4854 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “71(A), a felony of the fifth degree)] 11 months as to Count 4 [receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.41(A), (C), and 2913.71(A), a felony of the fifth degree], and 11 months as to Count 6 [identity fraud in violation of R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.41(C) — 1 case

State v. Daniels, 572 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “Facts On June 17, 1986, the Lorain County Grand Jury indicted Andrew Daniels for defrauding a livery in violation of R.C. 2913.41. The indictment also specified that Daniels had three prior convictions for passing bad checks.”

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.