Login | July 10, 2025
Appellate panel reverses decision in sealed eviction record case
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 20, 2025
An Ohio appellate panel reversed a municipal court’s ruling that denied a Lancaster woman’s effort to seal the eviction record filed against her by the owner of a rental property.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the Fairfield County Municipal Court holding that the rules governing the sealing of court documents did not apply to the eviction action filed against Afrique Peters, 45.
“(The Rules of Superintendence) Sup.R. 45(E) provides, ‘any party to a judicial action or proceeding’ may petition the trial court to ‘restrict public access to the information or, if necessary, the entire document,’” Fifth District Presiding Judge Andrew King wrote for the panel. “Peters was a party to the subject judicial action or proceeding. The rule does not limit the judicial action or proceeding and does not exclude eviction actions.”
Property owner Eric Hurst on July 5, 2023, filed a complaint for eviction/forcible entry and detainer action against Peters seeking unpaid rent, case summary provided.
Hurst alleged there was no lease agreement between he and Peters, characterizing the woman as a squatter.
Hurst failed to appear at a magistrate’s hearing July 25, 2023, resulting in the magistrate’s dismissal of the case without prejudice, summary continued.
The municipal court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
Peters filed a motion to seal an eviction filing record with a supporting affidavit under Sup.R. 45(E) Sept. 18, 2024.
In the filing, she stated that she never lived at the property. Rather, it was her ex-husband who resided there, summary noted.
Additionally, Peters claimed that the eviction filed against her was a stain on her record, resulting in numerous landlords having refused to rent to her because of it.
She said the circumstance has drastically affected her ability to find housing and caused her immeasurable stress, both financially and emotionally.
The magistrate denied the motion, finding Sup.R. 45(E) did not apply to the sealing of eviction proceedings, by order filed Sept. 30, 2024.
The magistrate noted that because the matter was dismissed, there was no judgment to vacate.
Peters filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s order on Oct. 10, 2024, prompting the municipal court to deny the woman’s motion on the basis that the magistrate properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.
Peters appealed to the Fifth District court, arguing that Sup.R. 45(E) requires the court to hold a hearing on a motion to restrict public access and that the trial court committed reversible error by its failure to do so.
Sup.R. 45, subsection (E)(1) states: Any party to a judicial action or proceeding or other person who is the subject of information in a case document may, by written motion to the court, request that the court restrict public access to the information or, if necessary, the entire document. Additionally, the court may restrict public access to the information in the case document or, if necessary, the entire document upon its own order. The court shall give notice of the motion or order to all parties in the case, and it may schedule a hearing on the motion.
“Upon review, we find the trial court should have considered Peters’ motion to seal eviction filing record under Sup.R. 45(E),” King continued.
The appellate decision reversed the previous ruling and remanded the matter to the municipal court for further proceedings.
Fifth District judges William Hoffman and David Gormley joined King’s opinion.
Copyright © 2025 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved