Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Contracts

Taylor v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County · 2019 · Contracts
2019 Ohio 2132 (2019)
Updated
ContractsLeaseMootnessAppealSecurity Depositvoluntary satisfactionjudgmentsupersedeas bond

Facts

Taylor and Johnson had a residential lease that became month-to-month after the original one-year term expired. After Johnson terminated the month-to-month tenancy, Taylor moved out and later sued pro se, claiming she did not receive a full 30 days to move, that Johnson failed to return her security deposit, and that she was wrongly charged for property damage. Johnson counterclaimed for damages to the home, and the trial court entered judgment for Johnson in the amount of $5,085.44 after accounting for the security deposit. Taylor did not obtain a stay of execution; after one wage garnishment, she paid the remainder of the judgment in full.

Issue

Does an appeal become moot when the appellant pays a valid judgment in full after failing to obtain a stay of execution, even if payment followed wage garnishment and was motivated by limited finances and a desire to avoid further collection consequences?

Rule

An appellant may obtain a stay of execution pending appeal by giving an adequate supersedeas bond under Civ.R. 62(B). If the appellant does not obtain a stay and voluntarily pays a valid judgment in full, the pending appeal is moot; collection efforts, financial hardship, wage garnishment of part of the judgment, or a desire to avoid further costs, interest, credit consequences, or embarrassment do not make the appellant's complete satisfaction of the judgment involuntary.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Columbus, Ohio, Nora Patel lost a breach-of-lease suit and a valid money judgment was entered against her. She filed a notice of appeal but never sought a stay, then paid the judgment in full from her savings to stop the landlord's collection efforts.

What is the strongest argument about the status of Nora's appeal?

Explanation. The majority rule is that voluntary payment of a valid judgment renders a pending appeal moot unless the appellant obtained a stay by posting an adequate supersedeas bond. Because Nora did not obtain a stay and fully paid the valid judgment, reversal would not provide effective relief. (Derived from Taylor v. Johnson (n.d.).)