Ohio court reverses commercial eviction after judge rules without hearing evidence
The two sides split over whether they had a valid lease. Valley Auto claimed the parties signed two written leases in December 2024 with an effective date of January 1, 2024. Valley Auto sued on January 15, 2025, seeking a court order declaring the leases valid and enforceable.
Six Brothers filed eviction actions on February 13, 2025, in Girard Municipal Court and Warren Municipal Court, arguing no valid written leases existed and that Valley Auto occupied the properties as a month-to-month tenant who had not paid February 2025 rent.
The cases were consolidated in the Court of Common Pleas. A magistrate heard the eviction over two days – July 31 and September 11, 2025 – with witnesses and exhibits from both sides.
Then the process broke down. The magistrate never filed a written decision. Three months later, on December 10, 2025, the trial judge issued his own judgment finding the leases unenforceable because they were not properly signed and acknowledged, ruling the parties had an oral month-to-month lease, and holding Six Brothers could not evict without first serving a required 30-day notice.
Under Civil Rule 53, a magistrate who hears a contested matter must issue a written decision giving both sides a chance to file objections and giving the trial judge an evidentiary basis for independent review. None of that happened.
