6750 BMS v. Drentlau (2016)
Decided March 31, 2016; Cuyahoga County No. 103409. Complete official seventeen-page opinion retrieved 2026-10-17.
Facts and holding
A storage-auction buyer removed a motorcycle with the contents of the purchased unit. The facility claimed the motorcycle had been excluded and sued for conversion. Summary judgment for the buyer was affirmed.
The facility could not establish ownership or an enforceable right to possession, a required conversion element. It had not complied with the applicable statutory lien-enforcement procedures (¶¶29–37). That disposed of its claim.
Scope and reasoning
The court said the effectiveness of the facility’s lien against a possible motorcycle lender was unknown because no title search had been conducted (¶33). At ¶¶38–42 it quoted R.C. 5322.03(I)(2), including its additional language concerning other interests/liens, but expressly stated that buyer good faith would matter in an action by an interest/lien holder, not the facility’s conversion claim. It did not adjudicate a lender’s title or announce universal discharge of every motor-vehicle lien.
Current fit
The opinion applied the former mandatory-tow language of 5322.03(K). Current R.C. 5322.03, effective September 13, 2022, uses optional towing and different conditions. Current 5322.02, lender consent, immediate removal under (H)(1), and (I)(2) must be considered separately. The decision’s limited holding does not settle that interaction.
Later treatment
Focused name/citation searches did not establish comprehensive subsequent appellate history or merits treatment. These remain needs_verification; successful primary-body retrieval is separate from good-law status.
Applies in →
ohio · motor-vehicles · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Read the full opinion and current law; later authority may limit this decision.