finding -10- Case No. 5-23-36 that a landlady-mother did not have possession and control of the premises where she had the “ability to visit the home” of her tenant-daughter
How later courts described this case
- finding -10- Case No. 5-23-36 that a landlady-mother did not have possession and control of the premises where she had the “ability to visit the home” of her tenant-daughter
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HORTON, J., dissenting.
{¶ 35} I respectfully dissent with the majority on the myriad issues of fact surrounding the question of whether defendant-appellee, Susan Griffith, is a "harborer" of the dog who possessed both possession and control of the property. The mother-daughter relationship, the lack of a written lease agreement, the question as to whether the $675 quasi-monthly payments daughter made to mother constitute evidence of co-ownership versus "rent" payments, the mother's knowledge of the viciousness of the dogs, the unfettered access mother had to the property and her improvements made, and the actual level of control and possession mother had over the property, among other things, present genuine issue of fact for a jury to decide. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.