Seller accepted payments for years, then called them rent
The buyer moved in, started paying, and never missed a month. The seller confirmed as much in her own deposition.
Then came a February 2022 letter. The seller accused the buyer of breaching the contract by failing to pay “lump sum amounts.” But that same letter referred to a “rent to buy property” and acknowledged a “5-year mark agreed upon to have the property paid off in full.” The seller offered two options: return the property and treat all payments as rent, or get a bank loan within six months.
The buyer disputed any lump-sum arrangement. The seller filed a forcible entry and detainer action in October 2022. After a prior appeal that reversed the municipal court for lack of jurisdiction and a due process violation, the case went to a bench trial in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. On December 29, 2025, the trial court ruled the agreement was a land installment contract.
The appeals court affirmed on two grounds. The agreement substantially complied with Ohio’s land installment contract statute, R.C. 5313.02(A). And where the contract was ambiguous – closing date versus monthly payment terms – extrinsic evidence overwhelmingly supported the buyer. Checks marked “pago casa” (house payments), uncontradicted testimony about roof replacement, re-insulation, and other improvements all pointed the same way.
The court emphasized that R.C. Chapter 5313 is a consumer protection statute. It was “not designed as a way for sellers to escape from contracts they wished to void.” The seller drafted the agreement; the omissions in it cut against her, not the buyer.
