Cedar One Properties, Ltd. v. Rudolph

[Cite as Cedar One Properties, Ltd. v. Rudolph, 2026-Ohio-1260.]




             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 HARRISON COUNTY

                             CEDAR ONE PROPERTIES, LTD.
                               AKA CEDAR ONE REALTY,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                     v.

                                          ISIS RUDOLPH,

                                       Defendant-Appellant.


                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 25 HA 0003


                                     Civil Appeal from the
                          Harrison County Court, Harrison County, Ohio
                                    Case No. CVG 2500241

                                          BEFORE:
                   Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.


                                              JUDGMENT:
                                                Affirmed.


Atty. Jeffrey J. Bruzzese, Bruzzese, Hanlin & Bruzzese, LLC, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

Isis Rudolph, Pro se, Defendant-Appellant.

                                          Dated: April 7, 2026
                                                                                         –2–


HANNI, J.

       {¶1}   Defendant-Appellant, Isis Rudolph (Appellant), appeals from a Harrison
County Court judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee, Cedar One Properties, Ltd. aka
Cedar One Realty (Appellee). The court found that Appellant violated the terms of her
lease agreement by failing to pay rent and granted Appellee’s forcible entry and detainer
action. Appellant vacated the premises.
       {¶2}   Pro se Appellant asserts six assignments of error.          She contends the
bankruptcy court violated her due process rights and failed to comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. She also challenges the bankruptcy court’s order granting Appellee
relief from the bankruptcy stay as void. She maintains that the county court’s eviction
judgment is therefore void ab initio because it was based on the void bankruptcy order
and issued during an active bankruptcy stay.          She further alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) violations, a void eviction based on legally uncollectible pre-
bankruptcy petition rent, and procedural and jurisdictional defects.
       {¶3}   We note that Appellant’s pro se brief fails to comply with a number of
appellate rules. She fails to provide a table of contents or a table of cases and statutes
as required by App.R. 16(A)(1) and (2). She also fails to provide references to the record
or analysis with record and legal citations as required by App.R. 16(A)(6) and (7).
Appellant has also failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the county court’s
eviction hearing as required by App.R. 9.
       {¶4}   Even addressing her assignments of error, we are unable to address most
of them because Appellant challenges the federal bankruptcy procedures and orders,
over which neither we nor the county court possess jurisdiction. Further, Appellant fails
to specifically identify the procedural and jurisdictional defects she alleges occurred in the
county court. She has also failed to provide a transcript of the county court proceedings
and we thus presume regularity of those proceedings. Lastly, the county court’s judgment
entries belie some of Appellant’s assertions.
       {¶5}   Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                            I.     FACTS AND PROCEDURE

       {¶6}   Appellant and Appellee entered into a residential lease agreement on July



Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                     –3–


22, 2024. On September 11, 2025, Appellee filed a complaint for forcible entry and
detainer in Harrison County Court. Appellee asserted it posted a three-day notice on
Appellant’s door on June 24, 2025 informing her she had to vacate its property. Appellee
alleged Appellant failed to pay rent and owed $2,040 in past due rent.
       {¶7}    The county court issued a summons on September 11, 2025, which
included a notice of hearing scheduled for September 29, 2025. The return of summons
indicated Appellant was personally served on that date.
       {¶8}    On September 19, 2025, Appellant filed objections, a motion to stay
proceedings, and a request for accommodations under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the
ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. She requested that the court recognize her pending
bankruptcy action. She noted Appellee had motioned for relief from the bankruptcy
court’s automatic stay. Appellant asserted Appellee’s three-day notice to vacate was void
because it was issued while her bankruptcy stay was pending. She also alleged she was
not served with Appellee’s motion for relief from stay. She contended the county court
lacked jurisdiction to proceed on eviction until the bankruptcy court ruled on the motion
for relief from stay.
       {¶9}    Appellant also requested accommodations under the FHA, ADA and
Rehabilitation Act to meaningfully participate in the proceeding.       She identified her
disabilities and noted counsel had withdrawn from her case. She stated she attempted
to file a disability claim but could not pay the $5 filing fee. She alleged that when she
requested that Appellee reasonably accommodate her for nonpayment of rent due to her
disabilities, Appellee retaliated by informing her it would not renew her lease.
       {¶10} On September 24, 2025, the county court stayed its proceedings based on
Appellant’s June 17, 2025 filing of a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
       {¶11} On September 25, 2025, Appellee submitted to the county court a
bankruptcy court order granting it relief from the bankruptcy stay. The bankruptcy order
noted that no objections were filed to Appellee’s motion for relief and no request was
made for a hearing. The bankruptcy court granted Appellee relief from the stay to “pursue
its in rem remedies under non-bankruptcy law” for the property from which Appellee




Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                      –4–


sought Appellant’s eviction. The bankruptcy court limited the relief from stay to pursue
the eviction and not a monetary judgment.
      {¶12} On September 25, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to appear by video for the
September 29, 2025 hearing before the county court. On September 29, 2025, the county
court issued a judgment entry indicating that hearing was held and Appellant appeared
by video without counsel. The county court lifted the bankruptcy stay based on the
bankruptcy court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay.
The county court granted Appellee restitution of the premises.
      {¶13} On September 30, 2025, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On the same
date, she filed a motion to stay execution of judgment in the county court under Civ.R. 62.
She explained she filed an appeal and faced loss of housing, which would prevent her
from meaningfully participating in ongoing legal matters. She stated she had disabilities
and was indigent and therefore could not post a bond for appeal.
      {¶14} On October 1, 2025, the county court issued a judgment entry granting
judgment in favor of Appellee. The county court indicated it held a hearing on September
29, 2025, where Appellant appeared via video and Appellee appeared with counsel. The
court found service of process perfected on Appellant and she was served with proper
notice to vacate the premises. The court indicated it took testimony in accordance with
R.C. 1923.07 and found Appellee’s complaint allegations true that Appellant failed to pay
rent as required under the lease agreement. The court ordered restitution of the premises
to Appellee by October 10, 2025. The court also issued a Writ of Restitution and found
that after October 10, 2025, Appellant had no right of possession in the premises.
      {¶15} On October 2, 2025, the county court issued a judgment entry citing R.C.
1923.14, which outlined a method for a defendant to maintain the premises during an
appeal by filing a timely notice of appeal, seeking a stay of execution, and posting a
supersedeas bond. The court also cited Civ.R. 62, which provides for an appeal and a
stay of execution of judgment by giving an adequate supersedeas bond. The court found
a bond equal to eight months of rent ($6,400) adequate. The court ordered a stay of the
Writ of Restitution upon Appellant’s filing of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $6,400
by October 10, 2025.




Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                          –5–


       {¶16} On October 8, 2025, pro se Appellant filed an emergency motion to enforce
the automatic stay and halt eviction proceedings. She cited her bankruptcy case, which
she alleged automatically stayed all judicial actions and she alleged she was never served
with notice of the motion for relief from stay. She explained she did not respond to the
bankruptcy court’s granting of relief from the stay because she did not receive notice.
She alleged the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order relieving Appellee
from the automatic stay.
       {¶17} On October 10, 2025, the county court issued a judgment entry denying
Appellant’s emergency motion to enforce the automatic stay. The court held it already
ruled on Appellant’s request for a stay pending appeal and she presented no new
evidence from the bankruptcy proceeding.
       {¶18} Appellant presents six assignments of error on appeal.             They will be
addressed out of order for ease of review and analysis.
       {¶19} Appellee contends that Appellant offers only conclusory assignments of
error without much legal support or analysis, which violates App.R. 16. Appellee further
asserts we should overrule all of Appellant’s assignments of error because she failed to
submit a transcript with her appeal, as required by App.R. 9. Appellee also notes that
Appellant failed to raise some of the issues presented in her assignments of error in the
trial court, which constitutes a plain error standard of review. And finally, Appellee asserts
that the record of proceedings in this case refutes Appellant’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
assignments of error.

                               II.    LAW AND ANALYSIS

      A.     APPELLATE RULE VIOLATIONS-ALL ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶20} Appellant’s pro se brief violates App.R. 16(A), which outlines the contents
of appellate briefs. App.R. 16(A) requires an appellant to include in her brief a table of
contents with page references and a table of cases arranged alphabetically, along with
citations to statutes and other legal authorities with pages references.               App.R.
16(A)(1),(2). Appellant’s brief lacks these required sections.
       {¶21} Further, Appellant provides no reference to the record concerning her
assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(6). Nor does she provide argument or



Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                           –6–


analysis with reference to the record or citation to legal authorities in support of her
assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). The only legal authority Appellant
cites are two sections of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, a vague reference to a violation
of “due process,” and a vague reference to the “ADA.”
       {¶22} Appellant has also violated App.R. 9, which requires her to order a transcript
of proceedings, file a copy of that order with the court, and ensure that a transcript is filed.
App.R. 9(B)(1) imposes a duty on Appellant to ensure that the proceedings she considers
necessary to her appeal are transcribed and submitted to the court. App.R. 9(B)(4)
requires Appellant to include the transcript in the record when asserting on appeal that a
finding or conclusion is not supported by the evidence or against the weight of the
evidence. If an appellant is unable to afford the cost of having a transcript prepared, she
may use a statement of proceedings under App.R. 9(C). See Staff Note (July 1, 2011
Amendment) to App.R. 9, citing State ex rel. Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56, 58
(1986).
       {¶23} Appellant has not filed a transcript of the county court’s bench trial. Further,
the record fails to show that she ordered a transcript or attached a copy of a request for
a transcript or an order for a transcript. The record also fails to show that Appellant filed
a statement of proceedings under App.R. 9(C).
       {¶24} We cannot consider assignments of error where an appellant fails to provide
a hearing transcript or an affidavit summarizing evidence presented at the hearing.
Givens v. Klug, 2022-Ohio-1561, ¶ 11 (7th Dist.). In such a case, we presume the
regularity of the proceedings in the court below. Id. Accordingly, without the transcript of
the trial here, we presume the validity of the county court proceedings.
       {¶25} Further, without a transcript of the trial court proceedings, we cannot
determine which, if any, of the issues Appellant raises before us were raised in the court
below. If these issues were not preserved in the court below by objections, they are
waived on appeal but for plain error. In a civil case, “[a] party's failure to object forfeits
review for all but plain error, which appellate courts will invoke when the error is of such
seriousness that it affects ‘the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial
process.’” Calloway v. McKenna, 2023-Ohio-3130, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), quoting In re I.W.,




Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                           –7–


2019-Ohio-1515, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.) (citing McNeil v. Kingsley, 2008-Ohio-5536, ¶ 24 (3d
Dist.)).
           {¶26} Although Appellant has violated the above appellate rules, we shall address
her assignments of error to the extent possible.

                B.     ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1, 2, 6 - DUE PROCESS

           {¶27} In her first, second and sixth assignments of error, Appellant asserts:

           1.        THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING AN EVICTION
           JUDGMENT WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE OF THE BASIS OF THE
           CLAIM, VIOLATING APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

           2.        THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING JUDGMENT
           WITHOUT PROVIDING APPELLANT A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY
           TO BE HEARD, IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS.

           6.        THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING
           TO CORRECT PROCEDURAL AND JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS
           AFTER APPELLANT NOTIFIED THE COURT.

           {¶28} Appellant first complains that the federal bankruptcy order granting
Appellee relief from the automatic stay is void because she did not receive service of the
motion. She cites Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004 and contends she did not receive a certificate
of service with Appellee’s motion for relief from the stay.
           {¶29} Neither the county court nor this Court can determine the validity of a federal
bankruptcy court order. With certain exceptions, federal district courts have original and
exclusive jurisdiction of bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. 1334(a). “‘Any decision to lift or
modify an automatic stay is left to the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court.’”
Greenwood v. Greenwood, 2013-Ohio-5339 (6th Dist.), quoting White v. White, 851 F.2d
170, 174 (6th Cir. 1988). A state court cannot modify this stay, but may determine if
proceedings or actions before it are subject to the stay and whether the action it seeks to
take is subject to the stay. Greenwood at ¶ 19, citing Dominic's Restaurant of Dayton,
Inc. v. Mantia, 683 F.3d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 2012).




Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                      –8–


        {¶30} Thus, we cannot review or modify the federal bankruptcy order granting
Appellee relief from its stay. Moreover, the record of proceedings in this case includes a
copy of the September 25, 2025 bankruptcy court order granting Appellee relief from the
automatic stay pertaining to the property at issue in this case. The order states that no
objections or hearing requests were timely filed to Appellee’s motion for relief from the
stay.
        {¶31} Appellant contends in her second assignment of error that “due process”
was violated because the county court asked her only whether rent had been paid. She
submits the county court also failed to consider the bankruptcy stay, the lack of notice,
and disability-related barriers. She provides no further details.
        {¶32} We find no merit to this assignment of error. The county court conducted a
hearing in accordance with R.C. 1923, the eviction statute. Appellant had requested to
appear by video or telephone due to her disabilities and the court granted that request.
The judgment entry indicated Appellant appeared via Zoom for the hearing. Appellant
fails to identify any additional requests that she was refused.
        {¶33} Without a copy of the transcript of the county court hearing, we cannot
ascertain the questions asked by the court and determine if they only related to whether
rent was paid. We must presume regularity in the court proceedings.
        {¶34} Further, to the extent Appellant alleges the county court failed to consider
her lack of notice of the motion for relief from the stay in bankruptcy court, the county
court had no jurisdiction to address this assertion. Neither does this Court. If Appellant
is asserting she did not receive notice of the eviction hearing in county court, the county
court judgment entry contradicts this assertion as it states she was properly served with
process and received proper notice to vacate.
        {¶35} In her sixth assignment of error, Appellant reiterates that the bankruptcy
court order granting Appellee relief from the automatic stay is void because she was not
served with the motion for relief from the stay. This is the same argument that she
presents in her first assignment of error. Again, neither the county court nor this Court
may review or modify the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the stay.
        {¶36} For these reasons, Appellant’s first, second, and sixth assignments of error
lack merit and are overruled.



Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                      –9–


                         C.     ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

       {¶37} In her third assignment of error, Appellant asserts:

       THE EVICTION JUDGMENT IS VOID BECAUSE IT WAS ENTERED
       DURING AN ACTIVE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY AUTOMATIC STAY, IN
       VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C. § 362(A).

       {¶38} Appellant asserts the county court entered the eviction judgment in violation
of the automatic bankruptcy stay. She cites 11 U.S.C. § 362(A) as prohibiting possession
actions, collection of rent, and enforcement of judgments. She contends that any action
that violates the automatic stay is void ab initio.
       {¶39} We find no merit to this assignment of error. According to the record before
us, Appellee filed its complaint for forcible entry and detainer on September 11, 2025.
The complaint included a hearing date for September 29, 2025. Appellant filed an
objection to the complaint on September 19, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the county
court granted a stay of proceedings upon notification that Appellant had filed a bankruptcy
petition.
       {¶40} The record shows that on September 25, 2025, Appellant filed a motion in
the county court to appear by video for the hearing. The record also shows a filing on the
record of the bankruptcy court order granting Appellee’s motion for relief from the
automatic stay for the property in the instant case. The county court proceeded in the
eviction action based on the bankruptcy court’s granting of Appellee’s motion for relief
from the stay. Neither the county court nor this Court can rule on whether Appellee
violated the bankruptcy stay, especially when the bankruptcy court order shows Appellee
was relieved from the stay. Further, the county court limited Appellee’s judgment within
the parameters of the relief granted Appellee by the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy
court granted relief from the stay to the limited action to pursue eviction and not for a
monetary judgment. The county court issued the eviction for the property and no money
judgment was granted.
       {¶41} Accordingly, Appellant’s third assignment of error lacks merit and is
overruled.




Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                     – 10 –


                         D.        ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

       {¶42} In her fourth assignment of error, Appellant asserts:

       THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO SAFEGUARD APPELLANT’S RIGHTS
       UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT BY NOT
       ACCOMMODATING HER DISABILITY–RELATED LIMITATIONS IN THE
       CONTEXT        OF      THE      BANKRUPTCY        PROCEEDINGS         THAT
       CONTROLLED THE OUTCOME.

       {¶43} While Appellant’s assignment of error appears directed at the county court,
the argument section relates solely to the bankruptcy court case. Appellant contends she
requested electronic filing capability in her bankruptcy case because she is disabled and
unable to go to the courthouse.        She asserts the bankruptcy court denied her this
capability, which prevented her from defending Appellee’s motion for relief from the stay.
She asserts that this violated the ADA.
       {¶44} Again, neither the county court nor this Court may grant relief relating to
occurrences or alleged violations in bankruptcy court. Accordingly, we find no merit to
Appellant’s fourth assignment of error and it is overruled.

                              E.     ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

       {¶45} In her fifth assignment of error, Appellant asserts:

       TRIAL COURT RELIED ON PRE-PETITION RENT THAT WAS LEGALLY
       UNCOLLECTIBLE AND BARRED BY THE BANKRUPTCY CODE.

       {¶46} Appellant provides only the following statements with respect to this
assertion:

       All pre-petition rent is a pre-petition claim.

       It cannot be collected during bankruptcy.

       The trial court relied on a basis for eviction that federal bankruptcy law
       expressly prohibits.

       {¶47} Again, Appellant has not provided a copy of the county court hearing
transcript. Thus, we presume regularity in that proceeding. Insofar as pre-petition rent is


Case No. 25 HA 0003
                                                                                      – 11 –


concerned, or any money judgment for that matter, the county court did not grant any
money judgment in favor of Appellee. The county court did find that Appellant violated
the lease by failing to pay rent. This finding is not prohibited since Appellee was granted
relief from the automatic stay to pursue the eviction action.
       {¶48} Accordingly, we find that Appellant’s fifth assignment of error lacks merit
and is overruled.
       {¶49} In summary, Appellant has failed to follow a number of appellate rules,
including failing to file a table of contents or a table of cases and statutes as required by
App.R. 16(A)(1) and (2). She also fails to provide references to the record or analysis
with legal citations as required by App.R. 16(A)(6) and (7). Appellant has also failed to
provide this Court with a transcript of the county court’s eviction hearing as required by
App.R. 9.
       {¶50} Even addressing her assignments of error, Appellant fails to specifically
identify the procedural and jurisdictional defects she alleges occurred in the county court.
She alleges errors with the bankruptcy court and its order that neither we nor the county
court can address due to that court’s exclusive jurisdiction to issue a bankruptcy stay and
relief from that stay. Moreover, neither we nor the county court possess authority to
modify or alter a bankruptcy stay order or to review bankruptcy proceedings and its rulings
as to its procedure. In addition, the county court accommodated Appellant’s only request
before it for a disability accommodation. The county court also properly entered judgment
for Appellee as to forcible entry and detainer as Appellee was granted relief from the
automatic bankruptcy stay, the county court held a hearing, and limited its judgment to
only the eviction.
       {¶51} For the reasons stated above, the trial court’s judgment is hereby affirmed.

Waite, P.J., concurs.

Robb, J., concurs.




Case No. 25 HA 0003
[Cite as Cedar One Properties, Ltd. v. Rudolph, 2026-Ohio-1260.]




        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error
are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
Harrison County Court, Harrison County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the
Appellant.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.




                                        NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.