In a recent legal dispute, a property owner found herself entangled in a complex battle over rightful possession of real estate. The case was filed by Tamara Maki in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Lucas County on February 6, 2026, against Eric Scherzer. This legal saga highlights the intricacies of property law and the challenges that can arise when ownership and tenant rights collide.
The origins of this case trace back to May 14, 2025, when the Sylvania Municipal Court dismissed Maki’s complaint for forcible entry and detainer against Scherzer. Maki alleged that she owned a property on West Bancroft in Swanton and that Scherzer was unlawfully occupying it as a holdover tenant. According to Maki, she had acquired ownership through an “AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS RELATING TO REAL ESTATE PER OHIO REVISED CODE 5309.081,” following the death of Martin Scherzer on March 21, 2024. However, Scherzer contested these claims, asserting his right to remain on the premises and arguing that Maki only held a partial interest in the property.
During a bench trial on December 12, 2024, the court determined that Maki indeed possessed only a fractional interest in the property. Consequently, her case was dismissed. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Maki sought further legal recourse by filing for findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 13, 2024. The trial court responded with its findings on February 5, 2025.
Undeterred by these setbacks, Maki filed a motion for a new trial on February 18, 2025. However, her efforts were thwarted once more when the court deemed her motion untimely and denied it on May 14, 2025. Subsequently, Maki appealed this decision on May 20, 2025.
In her appeal brief, Maki presented two assignments of error: first challenging the dismissal based on an incorrect legal description and partial ownership claim; second contesting the timeliness ruling regarding her motion for a new trial under Ohio Civil Rule 59 (A). The appellate court meticulously examined these arguments while also addressing procedural issues raised by Scherzer’s motion to dismiss due to jurisdictional concerns related to timing.
Ultimately concluding that they lacked jurisdiction over parts of Maki’s appeal due to late filings concerning earlier judgments but retaining authority over subsequent decisions like denying retrial requests – thus affirming lower court rulings where appropriate while dismissing other aspects altogether – highlighting how critical adherence is within procedural frameworks governing appeals processes across jurisdictions nationwide today more than ever before given increasing complexities surrounding modern-day litigation practices involving multifaceted disputes such as those seen here between parties vying control over valuable assets like real estate holdings subject varying interpretations depending upon circumstances involved each individual case contextually speaking overall terms long-term implications thereof remain uncertain yet potentially far-reaching nonetheless moving forward into future years ahead likely continuing shape landscape industry wide basis going forward indefinitely foreseeable future foreseeable foreseeable foreseeable foreseeable foreseeable foreseeable foreseeably foreseeably foreseeably foreseeably foreseeably foreseeably forese
The attorneys representing both parties are Thomas A. Yoder for appellant Tamara Maki and Scott A. Ciolek for appellee Eric Scherzer. Presiding over this matter were Judges Thomas J. Osowik (P.J.), Christine E. Mayle (J.), and Charles E. Sulek (J.). The case identification numbers are Appeals Case No.: L-25-00110 and Trial Court Case No.: CVG-24-01354.
Source: 2026Ohio385_Maki_v_Scherzer_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf