Under the amendment, landlords filing an eviction will be required to attach a full rental ledger or equivalent financial record covering the relevant period. In cases based on nonpayment of rent, the Complaint must also include an itemized ledger detailing how the average was calculated at the time of filing. The rule makes clear that failure to provide these documents may result in dismissal, continuance, or other court-ordered remedies. In practical terms, inadequate or incomplete ledgers can delay the eviction timeline, increase costs, and complicate recovery efforts.

For our landlord clients, this proposal serves as a timely reminder that careful and consistent record-keeping is not simply advisable—it is becoming indispensable. Courts are trending toward heightened scrutiny of eviction documentation, and Dayton’s proposed rule reinforces that movement. Maintaining clear monthly records, capturing all payments, charges, and balances, and avoiding reliance on hastily assembled figures will be essential to ensuring that eviction filings proceed without avoidable setbacks.

Our firm will continue to monitor this rule change and provide updates as they develop. In the meantime, this holiday season offers an opportunity to review your internal practices and ensure your rental records are complete, organized, and ready to support future filings. Strong documentation remains one of the most effective ways to protect your interests and promote efficient case resolution in the year ahead.

If you are a landlord and need eviction counsel, contact the author at 937-223-1130 or djohnson@pselaw.com.

The post **Holiday Advisory for Landlords** Dayton Municipal Court Proposes Stricter Rental Ledger Requirements appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

However, Ohio has modified the traditional rule through R.C. 2307.22. Defendants are generally liable only for their proportional share of damages unless a defendant is found to be more than 50% at fault. In the example above, if a jury finds that Alice was 60% at fault (for knocking over the paint), Bob 30% (for leaving the lid off), and Charlie 10% (for parking too close), only Alice would be jointly and severally liable for the entire $10,000. Bob and Charlie would owe only their respective shares.

This modern approach strikes a balance between ensuring injured parties can be fully compensated and protecting less-responsible defendants from disproportionate liability. In essence, Ohio’s rule ensures that those primarily responsible for the harm bear the greater financial burden—much like the person who causes most of the mess in a group project ends up doing most of the cleanup.

Bottom line, don’t spill the paint.

For guidance on navigating liability issues in Ohio, contact the author at djohnson@pselaw.com or 937-223-1130. At Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, our litigation team has the experience, knowledge, and ability to protect your interests.

The post Who Pays When the Paint Spills? Understanding Ohio’s Joint and Several Liability Rules appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

A cornerstone of Liv’s Law is authorizing oral fluid testing for OVI enforcement. This method allows law enforcement officers to collect oral fluid samples from individuals arrested for OVI offenses, enabling the detection of drugs or alcohol presence with immediate results. While these tests do not measure concentration levels, they are valuable in identifying impairment. Refusal to submit to an oral fluid test incurs the same penalties as refusing a breath or blood test under Ohio’s implied consent laws.

In tandem with enhanced detection methods, Liv’s Law imposes stricter sentencing for individuals convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, or involuntary manslaughter, particularly targeting repeat OVI offenders. Notably, the maximum prison term for aggravated vehicular homicide has increased from 15 to 20 years, and the maximum fine has risen to $25,000.

The legislation also mandates the installation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) for individuals with multiple OVI convictions. Previously optional, IIDs are now compulsory for second-time offenders seeking limited driving privileges.

Financial penalties have been elevated across all OVI offense categories. First-time offenders now face a minimum fine of $565, up from $375, while second-time offenders see an increase from $525 to $715.

Drivers in Ohio should be aware of these significant changes and exercise additional caution. The introduction of oral fluid testing means that law enforcement has more tools to detect impairment, making it more likely for impaired drivers to be caught and penalized.

If you need OVI representation or have questions about your rights in light of these changes, please get in touch with L. Michael Bly or Deztany Johnson at 937.223.1130.

The post Liv’s Law: Ohio’s New Measures to Combat Impaired Driving appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.