Change to Lease Agreement

[Litigator22]

Okay. I need more coffee to understand what you are trying to say.

It isn't what I have tried to say Q its what the Ohio court was trying to say in this study of judicial legerdemain known as Haught vs. Geissiner. More tomorrow.

Stay safe and well!

 

[quincy]

It isn't what I have tried to say Q its what the Ohio court was trying to say in this study of judicial legerdemain known as Haught vs. Geissiner. More tomorrow.

Stay safe and well!

Here is a link to Haught v. Geissinger:

https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/twelfth-district-court-of-appeals/2009/2009-ohio-98.html

So ... where do you think this leaves Stover?

 

[Litigator22]

Okay. I need more coffee to understand what you are trying to say.

Continuing:

The Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals in Haught vs. Geeisinger * is a striking example of the judiciary over stepping its bounds to undermine and subvert legislative intent.

The Ohio statute of conveyances clearly demands that enumerated transfers of ownership and/or possessory interests in real property (including all leases) must conform to its stated standards of verification or the underlying document is defective and thus void of legal force or effect.

To this the Ohio court fully acknowledged, finding that the Haught/Geeisinger purported lease was indeed defective (the lessor's signature lacking proper verification) and therefore of no legal consequence; to-wit:

"The language contained in the statute is mandatory and expresses the legal requirements necessary to create a valid lease."

However, the court wasn't pleased with the results (which it deemed leaving the litigants in limbo) so rather than relieving the litigants (pseudo-landlord and tenant) of any responsibilities under the invalid lease it concocted a substitute to which the parties are decreed as legally bound! The court's substituted concoction then gave life to what it calls an implied tenancy.

But seeing that their invention had no substance or body they magically resurrected the dead lease incorporating its terms and condition as part of their invention. That is, all but the duration of their invention. And this they cleverly inserted by again resorting to the deceased document decreeing that the duration of the newly concocted implied lease or tenancy would be commensurate with the periodic payment of rent under the voided document; to-wit:

" . . . the duration in an implied tenancy will be based on the payment terms in the invalid lease so that if the lessor pays on a monthly basis, a month to month tenancy will be created."
__________________________________

To my knowledge the much resourceful Ohio courts have yet to invent an implied deed, but there is hope.
__________________________________________

[*] Just the facts, mam'm?

Geissinger signed a lease agreeing to rent one of Haught's apartments. The lease contained a provision entitled "Renewal of Agreement" that stated: "At the end of the 12 months term, this agreement will automatically be renewed for an additional 12 months and thereafter every 12 months, under the same terms and conditions. The agreement can be terminated or modified by giving written notice 60 days prior to the renewal date."

The litigation arose when Haught refused to accept Geissinger's notice of termination because it was a few days short of the 60. Also, Haught's signature to the lease was not verified as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 5301 (the Ohio statute of conveyances.)