If the contract has been in effect for less than five years, in addition to any other remedies provided by law and after the expiration of the periods prescribed by sections 5313.05 and 5313.06 of the Revised Code, if the vendee is still in default of any payment the vendor may bring an action for forfeiture of the vendee's rights in the land installment contract and for restitution of his property under Chapter 1923. of the Revised Code. When bringing the action under Chapter 1923. of the Revised Code, the vendor complies with the notice requirement of division (A) of section 1923.04 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Ma v. Gomez, 2023-Ohio-524, 209 N.E.3d 178.
Ma v. Gomez, 2023-Ohio-524, 209 N.E.3d 178. · cites it 16דR.C. 5313.08 provides as follows: If [a land installment] contract has been in effect for less than five years, in addition to the other remedies provided by law and after the expiration of the periods prescribed by sections 5313.”
Bradford v. B & P Wrecking Co., 872 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2007). · cites it 10דHe asserted that pursuant to R.C. 5313.08, appellee’s sole remedy was to request a forfeiture of the land contracts and restitution of the properties.”
Howard v. Temple, 872 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007). · cites it 8דThe Temples assert that because Howard chose the forfeiture remedy provided in R.C. 5313.08, R.C. 5313.10 prohibited Howard from seeking damages representing the difference in price between the amount the Temples agreed to pay under the land installment contract and the amount…”
Goble v. Grosswiler, 2019-Ohio-4443. · cites it 5דTHE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THE 3-DAY NOTICE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENDANT COMPLIED WITH O.R.C. §5313.08 10-DAY NOTICE PROVISION. {¶13} “II.”
Hyle v. Porter, 117 Ohio St. 3d 165 (2008). “{¶ 21} In particular, R.C. 5313.08, considered in Kiser , includes the following language: “If the contract has been in effect for less than five years, * * * the vendor may bring an action for forfeiture.”
Kassoudji v. Stamps, 2016-Ohio-7693. · cites it 8ד{¶ 54} Even if we assume that the 20% amount had not been satisfied, in situations where a contract has existed for less than five years, the vendor “may bring an action for forfeiture of the vendee's rights in the land installment contract and for restitution of his property…”
Am. Servicing Corp. v. Wannemacher, 2014-Ohio-3984, 19 N.E.3d 566. · cites it 12ד{¶11} On December 20, 2013, the trial court concluded in a judgment entry that the contract between the parties constituted a land installment contract, not a lease with an option to purchase and that R.C. 5313.08 governed American Servicing’s complaint.”
Kiser v. Coleman, 503 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1986). “” R.C. 5313.08 provides, in pertinent part: “If the contract has been in effect for less than five years, in addition to any other remedies provided by law and after the expiration of the periods prescribed by sections 5313.”
Gingrich v. Otter Fork Equestrian Complex, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-2775, 248 N.E.3d 894. · cites it 2דOtter Fork sought forfeiture under R.C. 5313.08 because the 2021 land contract between the parties had been "in effect for less than five years.”
Hunter v. Wagener (In Re Sam A. Tisci, Inc.), 124 B.R. 42 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1990). · cites it 5דThe relevant portion of O.R.C. § 5313.08 provides: If the contract has been in effect for less than five years, in addition to any other remedies provided by law and after the expiration of the periods prescribed by sections 5313.”
Sood v. Rivers, 2023-Ohio-3417. · cites it 3ד07 and R.C. 5313.08. The magistrate’s decision, which the trial court adopted, found the vendees paid less than 20% of the principal and were in breach of the land contract.”
Good Shepherd Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 485 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1984). · cites it 3ד10 which pertains to the termination of land installment contracts by action pursuant to R.C. 5313.08. On August 13,1979, Douglas Kelley and Barbara Kelley, not parties to this appeal, purchased premises located at 2212 Cleveland Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, from the appellant by…”
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.