A tenant’s legal battle over eviction and alleged property mismanagement has been affirmed by the court, marking a significant decision in landlord-tenant disputes. Harold Franks filed a complaint against Vera Thomas on August 2, 2024, in the Canton Municipal Court after serving her with a Notice to Leave Premises. The case involved claims of unpaid rent and other damages totaling $4,051.00.
The case unfolded when Harold Franks, who owns rental property at 2026 2nd Street NE in Canton, Ohio, served Vera Thomas and her son Miles Clark with an eviction notice on July 20, 2024. The notice required them to vacate by August 1, 2024. When they failed to comply, Franks filed for forcible entry and detainer as well as monetary damages in court. The magistrate initially recommended a writ of restitution for the property during an August 22 hearing but continued the hearing regarding financial damages.
Miles Clark objected to the magistrate’s report citing negligence by Franks in maintaining a safe living environment. However, his objection was denied by the trial court on August 29, 2024. Thomas did not file any objections at that time.
Franks later amended his complaint on December 18, increasing the sought damages from $960 to $4,051 due to additional costs incurred. Notices sent to Thomas’s previous address were returned undelivered as “VACANT,” but upon receiving an updated address from Franks, new notices were successfully delivered via FedEx.
Despite receiving these notices at her new address on December 20, Thomas failed to appear at subsequent hearings scheduled for January 29, resulting in a default judgment against her for $4,051 plus interest and costs. She later appealed this judgment arguing improper notice and challenging the awarded amount without itemized evidence of damages beyond normal wear and tear.
Thomas also accused Franks of retaliatory charges under Ohio Rev. Code 5321.02(A)(1) and failing to meet habitability obligations under Ohio Rev. Code 5321.04. However, due to non-compliance with appellate procedural rules and lack of transcripts from lower court proceedings provided for review, her appeal was dismissed.
The ruling emphasized tenants’ responsibility to maintain current contact information with courts and stay informed about their cases’ status—a failure that led to Thomas’s unsuccessful appeal.
The attorneys involved were both parties representing themselves pro se before Judges William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, and Kevin W. Popham presiding over Case No: 2025CA00016.
Source: 2025CA00016_Franks_v_Thomas_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
