# E.F. v. Seymour

> Ohio Court of Appeals · September 27, 2018 · 120 N.E.3d 459

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887356

## Case

- **Full name:** [E.F.], Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angie SEYMOUR Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 27, 2018
- **Citations:** 120 N.E.3d 459; 2018 Ohio 3946
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Horton
- **Judges:** Sadler, Horton
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887356

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887356. Public record. Not legal advice.