forcible entry and detainer complaint

• Milo Iga Faces Possible Eviction

MILO - The Milo Farmers Union, the town's oldest business, could be evicted. The Claude N. Trask Agency Inc. of Milo, which owns the building in which the farmers union operates an IGA grocery store, has filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint that will be heard Dec. 2 in Piscataquis County District Court in Dover-Foxcroft.

• Bangor Daily News
• November 22, 2010

• Fogelman v. Stoyer, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court's judgment in favor of landlord affirmed where landlord brought complaint for forcible entry and detainer and for damages, complied with the terms of the parties' lease agreement, and gave proper notice under R.C. 1923.04.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Milo Iga Operators, Landlord to Negotiate

DOVER-FOXCROFT - The landlord of the Milo Farmers Union, which operates an IGA grocery store in Milo, has agreed to give his tenant until March 15 either to purchase the property or leave the premises. The Claude N. Trask Agency Inc. of Milo, which owns the building in which the farmers union operates the grocery store, had filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint that was to have been heard Thursday in Dover-Foxcroft District Court. Farmers union officials, who had no lease on the property, were served an eviction notice earlier this year. Thursday's hearing would have commenced action for a court order compelling the eviction of Milo's oldest business.

• Bangor Daily News
• December 03, 2010

• Uptown Community Partners, L.P. v. Killings, (Ohio 2011)

REAL PROPERTY/LANDLORD AND TENANT: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the tenant on the landlord’s complaint for forcible entry and detainer where the lease provision that the tenant was alleged to have violated, which stated that the tenant was liable for damage caused by the negligent acts of others, conflicted with R.C. 5321.05(A)(6)’s provisions limiting a tenant’s obligations to personally refraining from and forbidding others from damaging the apartment; because the lease provision conflicted with Ohio law, it was unenforceable.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Venture Properties of Boardman, Inc. v. Boardman Steel, Inc., (Ohio 2008)

Final appealable order where trial court adopted magistrate’s decision that dismissed forcible entry and detainer action but provided time to amend complaint, Where filed action was only action desired to be brought by appellants; Defendant was sufficiently established to be occupier without color of title for purposes of avoiding dismissal; Question of possessory interest in land by plaintiff requires presence of non-party, who shall be joined on remand.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Md. Court of Special Appeals: Allen, Et Al. V. Dackman

Torts Lead paint liability

... (collectively, the Allens), filed a complaint against Jay Dackman and Hard Assets, LLC, in circu...On June 27, 2000, Hard Assets filed a forcible entry and wrongful detainer complaint against Trac...

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• March 13, 2009

• Amick v. Sickles, (Ohio 2008)

CIVIL - Trial court's decision to sustain complaint in forcible entry and detainer was proper as Appellant was not a periodic tenant and notice requirements of R.C. 5321.17 were not applicable.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Malony v. Adsit, 175 U.S. 281 (1899)

... In May, 1896, Ohlin H. Adsit filed a complaint against John F. Malony in the United States distri... tenement, or other real property, where the entry is forcible, or where the possession thereof is un... indeed an action in forcible entry and detainer, and as the complaint shows on its face that the d...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Batt v. Nairebout, (Ohio 2003)

The trial court did not err in requiring proof of ownership in an FED action and did not err dismissing the complaint. forcible entry and detainer; unauthorized practice of law; ownership; R.C. 1923.01(C)(2); R.C. 5321.01(B).

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Morgan, (Ohio 2003)

The trial court erred in failing to dismiss a landlord’s complaint for forcible entry and detainer where the landlord’s posting of a three-day notice to leave the premises on the outside of the tenant’s apartment door was an insufficient method of service under R.C. 1923.04(A). A landlord who chooses to serve a three-day notice to vacate the premises under R.C. 1923.04(A) “by leaving it at [the tenant’s] usual place of abode or at the premises from which the [tenant] is sought to be evicted” must place the notice through the mail slot or under the tenant’s door.

• Ohio Supreme Court