Treen v. Treen — Third District affirms eviction of son from father’s land, finds informal arrangement created month-to-month tenancy

Case
Treen v. Treen, 2026-Ohio-1927
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals (Third District)
Date Decided
2026-05-26
Docket No.
8-25-20
Judge(s)
Miller, J., Willamowski, J., Waldick, J.
Topics
Landlord-Tenant, Real Property, Civil Procedure
Source
Full opinion on CourtListener · PDF

Background

In approximately 2005, Anthony Treen II moved into a mobile home on land owned by his father, Anthony Treen. The mobile home itself was owned by neither party — it belonged to the estate of the father’s deceased brother, and title was never transferred. The parties had no written agreement. Treen II occupied the property rent-free in exchange for paying utilities and property taxes. Over his 20 years of occupancy, Treen II built a garage and installed a well on the property.

In 2025, the father served a 30-day notice under R.C. 5321.17 to terminate what he characterized as a month-to-month tenancy, followed by a 3-day notice to leave. When Treen II refused to vacate, the father filed a forcible entry and detainer action under R.C. 1923. The trial court ordered Treen II to leave. Treen II appealed, arguing no landlord-tenant relationship existed because he paid no rent and neither party owned the mobile home.

The Court’s Holding

The Third District affirmed, finding the trial court’s determination of a landlord-tenant relationship was supported by competent, credible evidence. The court held that under R.C. 5321.01(C), the father qualified as a “landlord” because he owned the “grounds, areas, and facilities” on which the dwelling unit (the mobile home) sat, even though he did not own the mobile home itself. The court further held that a “rental agreement” under R.C. 5321.01(D) need not involve monetary rent; the exchange of utilities and property taxes for the right to occupy the property satisfied the statutory definition of consideration sufficient to create a tenancy.

The court also rejected Treen II’s argument that his 20-year occupancy created something other than a month-to-month tenancy, finding that the absence of any fixed term in the oral arrangement meant the tenancy was periodic and terminable with proper statutory notice.

Key Takeaways

  • Under Ohio law, a landowner who allows another to occupy a dwelling on the land qualifies as a “landlord” even if the landowner does not own the dwelling structure itself.
  • Payment of utilities and property taxes in exchange for the right to occupy property can constitute sufficient consideration to create a rental agreement under R.C. 5321.01(D), even without monetary rent.
  • An indefinite-term oral occupancy arrangement is a month-to-month tenancy under Ohio law, terminable with 30-day notice under R.C. 5321.17.

Why It Matters

This case is particularly relevant for Ohio real property practitioners dealing with informal family occupancy arrangements, which are common in rural areas. The holding that non-monetary contributions like utility payments and property taxes can create a landlord-tenant relationship expands the practical reach of Ohio’s Landlord-Tenant Act. Property owners who allow family members to occupy structures on their land without formal agreements should understand that they may be creating tenancies that require statutory notice procedures to terminate.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top