Following expiration of the period of time provided in section 5313.05 of the Revised Code, forfeiture of the interest of a vendee in default under a land installment contract shall be initiated by the vendor or by his successor in interest, by serving or causing to be served on the vendee or his successor in interest, if known to the vendor or his successor in interest, a written notice which:
(A) Reasonably identifies the contract and describes the property covered by it;
(B) Specifies the terms and conditions of the contract which have not been complied with;
(C) Notifies the vendee that the contract will stand forfeited unless the vendee performs the terms and conditions of the contract within ten days of the completed service of notice and notifies the vendee to leave the premises.
Such notice shall be served by the vendor or his successor in interest by handing a written copy of the notice to the vendee or his successor in interest in person, or by leaving it at his usual place of abode or at the property which is the subject of the contract or by registered or certified mail by mailing to the last known address of the vendee or his successor in interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Goble v. Grosswiler, 2019 Ohio 4443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Goble v. Grosswiler, 2019 Ohio 4443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 29ד08 {¶16} R.C. 5313.06 provides the notice provisions of a default: Following expiration of the period of time provided in section 5313.”
Keene v. Schnetz, 468 N.E.2d 125 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 12דHowever, appellants cite R.C. 5313.06 which states: “Following expiration of the period of time provided in section 5313.”
Am. Servicing Corp. v. Wannemacher, 2014 Ohio 3984 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 18דThe trial court concluded that American Servicing did not comply with the notice provisions of R.C. 5313.06, as required by R.C. 5313.08, and dismissed its complaint.”
Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St. 3d 184 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 2ד’ {¶ 24} “(B) The service of notice pursuant to section 5313.06 of the Revised Code constitutes compliance with the notice requirement of division (A) of this section.”
Chem. Bank v. Sullivan, 699 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10דAppellees insisted that this notice was required by R.C. 5313.06. The trial court agreed and dismissed the suit on appellee’s motion for summary judgment.”
Bradford v. B & P Wrecking Co., 872 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2דR.C. 5313.06 requires a vendor to serve written notice of the vendor’s intent to seek forfeiture and restitution of the property under R.”
Ma v. Gomez, 2023 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “He sent Gomez a notice of default that complies with R.C. 5313.06 prior to filing suit and directed the notice both to the real estate that is the subject of the installment contract and the Elbur Avenue address that Gomez agreed was the appropriate address to which the vendor…”
Howard v. Temple, 872 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2ד04 of the Revised Code by serving notice pursuant to section 5313.06 of the Revised Code. The court may also grant any other claim arising out of the contract.”
Perdue v. Jamison, 2019 Ohio 4597 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4דBut she asserted that there were genuine issues of material fact whether she was properly served pursuant to R.C. 5313.06, whether Perdue ever notified her of the real estate taxes, and whether she “defaulted under Section 3” of the land contract.”
Gingrich v. Otter Fork Equestrian Complex, L.L.C., 2024 Ohio 2775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2ד23 CA 00086 12 {¶ 41} In a letter dated July 1, 2022, Otter Fork notified appellants under R.C. 5313.06 that they were in default under the land contract and either had to pay $1,179,433.”
Johnson v. Maxwell, 554 N.E.2d 1370 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3דPrior to initiating this action, the Johnsons caused a “Notice of Forfeiture,” which cited R.C. 5313.06, to be served upon S.M.S. However, in their complaint, the Johnsons clearly sought relief in the form of foreclosure.”
Panel Town of Dayton, Inc. v. Corrigan (In Re Panel Town of Dayton, Inc.), 338 B.R. 764 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006). “Although the court cannot and will not overturn the state court issued certified judgment, the court notes that the judgment was issued utilizing an utterly incorrect interpretation of the law and without regard for the Ohio law, specifically Ohio Revised Code sections 5313.06,…”
Keene v. Schnetz, 468 N.E.2d 125 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “However, appellants cite R.C. 5313.06 which states: “Following expiration of the period of time provided in section 5313.”
Chem. Bank v. Sullivan, 699 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “Appellees insisted that this notice was required by R.C. 5313.06. The trial court agreed and dismissed the suit on appellee’s motion for summary judgment.”
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.