Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. Watkins

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1984No. 47961Published

1DissentMarkus, J.

In my view, the agreement between the parties was a lease with an option to purchase rather than a land installment contract. The occupant-defendant made no agreement to purchase the property in installment payments or otherwise. See R.C. 5313.01. Instead, the occupant-defendant acquired a right to buy the property under stated terms and conditions, if she later chose to do so.

If this were a land installment contract, CMHA could elect not to foreclose and recover a judgment for the total unpaid contract price. See Dalton v. Acker (1981), 5 Ohio App. 3d 150, 151. Alternatively, CMHA could…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dalton v. AckerOhio Court of Appeals · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API