Background
A law-enforcement agency directed Oscar’s Towing & Recovery to tow Yalanda Wisdom’s vehicle in October 2025 after she allegedly committed a traffic offense. The Canton Municipal Court later entered an order allowing the vehicle and its license plates to be released, but the order did not address towing or storage fees. Oscar’s Towing refused to return the vehicle until Wisdom paid the accrued charges.
Wisdom filed a civil complaint seeking damages and immediate release of the vehicle. The Stark County Court of Common Pleas denied her release motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Ohio Civil Rule 12(B)(6). Although Wisdom’s appellate brief did not comply with several requirements of Appellate Rule 16, the Fifth District discerned her intended assignments of error and reviewed the appeal in the interests of justice and finality.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the fee limits in Ohio Administrative Code 4901:2-24-03 did not apply because those limits concern vehicles removed from private property under R.C. 4513.60 and 4513.601, while Wisdom alleged that law enforcement ordered her vehicle removed in connection with a traffic offense. She also failed to allege a “major violation” under R.C. 4513.611 because she did not allege that she paid the required fees or that Oscar’s Towing committed any of the statute’s other specified violations.
The municipal court’s release order did not establish a claim against Oscar’s Towing because it said nothing about fees and could not adjudicate the property interest of a towing company that was not a party to the traffic case. Wisdom’s conversion claim likewise failed: even assuming R.C. 4513.61 authorized the tow, that statute makes the vehicle owner responsible for removal and storage charges. Because Wisdom admitted that she had not paid those charges, the company’s continued possession of the vehicle was not inconsistent with her ownership rights.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s administrative fee limits for vehicles removed from private property do not govern a law-enforcement-directed tow arising from an alleged traffic offense.
- A vehicle-release order entered in a traffic case does not eliminate a nonparty towing company’s right to seek towing and storage fees when the order does not address those charges.
- A vehicle owner who admits that required towing and storage fees remain unpaid cannot state a conversion claim merely because the towing company retains the vehicle pending payment.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a court’s authorization to release a vehicle from the owner’s separate obligation to pay lawful towing and storage charges. A release order that is silent about fees does not itself require a nonparty towing company to surrender the vehicle without payment.
The opinion also underscores that statutory claims against towing companies must be tied to the particular towing regime and violations alleged in the complaint. Fee restrictions governing private-property tows cannot be imported into a law-enforcement-directed tow without facts showing that the relevant statutes apply.