Moore v. Hart
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Moore v. Hart, 2003-Ohio-6497.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 82627 TAMMIE MOORE : : Plaintiff-appellee : : vs. : : ROBERT D. HART : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION : DECEMBER 4, 2003 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : : : Civil appeal from Lakewood Municipal Court Case No. 02 CVI 2578 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: TAMMIE MOORE Pro Se 2260 Wooster Road, #7 Rocky River, Ohio 44116 For defendant-appellant: ROBERT D. HART Attorney at Law 20800 Center Ridge Road Suite 222 Rocky River, Ohio 44116 JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert D. Hart, appeals from the Lakewood Municipal Court s judgment awarding plaintiffappellee, Tammie Moore, $375 on her complaint for return of a security deposit. He argues the court erred by finding no contract between the parties and by finding that Hart had failed to demonstrate any forfeiture of the deposit. economic loss to support the We find no error in the court s decision and affirm. {¶2} executed The parties agreed, and the court found, that Moore a rental application on September 21, 2002. Immediately above the signature line, the application stated: {¶3} CORRECT, I/WE DECLARE THE FOREGOING INFORMATION IS TRUE AND AND I/WE HEREBY AUTHORIZE YOU TO CONDUCT AN EMPLOYMENT AND CREDIT CHECK AND TO VERIFY OUR REFERENCES. {¶4} PART OF I/WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT WHICH IS THIS APPLICATION IS NON-REFUNDABLE IF APPLICANT REFUSES TO CONSUMMATE THE RENTAL AGREEMENT AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY LANDLORD. IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF, LANDLORD WILL CEASE ADVERTISING THIS APARTMENT AND WILL CEASE SHOWING THIS APARTMENT. {¶5} In connection with this application, Moore gave Hart a check in the amount of four hundred dollars. Hart returned five dollars in cash to Moore; twenty dollars was intended to cover the cost of a credit check. {¶6} Three days later, on September 24, 2002, Moore informed Hart that she no longer wanted the apartment. The next day, she sent a letter to Hart requesting the return of her deposit. {¶7} Hart refused. Hart claims that he removed the apartment from the market when Moore gave him her application. However, there were two other units available in the same building which he continued to advertise and show to prospective tenants. {¶8} deposit Hart under claims the that terms Moore of the forfeited rental the security application. We disagree. As the municipal court correctly noted, the forfeiture provision is expressly conditioned upon an acceptance of the prospective tenant, and there was no evidence that Hart had accepted Moore s application yet. Hart argues that his acceptance of Moore s money, and his agreement to stop advertising and showing the apartment, demonstrated his acceptance. that However, the application form makes it clear employment, credit the and reference application would checks be would be accepted or conducted before rejected. Therefore, the acceptance of Moore s check, and the agreement to stop advertising and showing the apartment, did not constitute acceptance of her application. {¶9} Moore could withdraw her application at any time before it was accepted by Hart. Toro v. Geyer (1951), 66 Ohio L.Abs. 497; Bronstein v. Arsham (Mar. 17, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 45163. There is no evidence in the record that Hart informed Moore that he had accepted her application before she informed him that she did not want to go forward with the lease. Thus, Moore effectively withdrew her application before it was accepted by Hart. {¶10} The terms of the rental application do not support the forfeiture Hart seeks. Accordingly, we agree with the municipal court that Moore is entitled to the return of her deposit, and affirm its judgment in her favor. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Lakewood Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JUDGE JAMES D. SWEENEY* PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J. and TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J. CONCUR N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). * Sitting by assignment, Judge James D. Sweeney, retired, of the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
