Laster v. Bowman

• Decision Date: 21 July 1977
• Citation: 52 Ohio App.2d 379,370 N.E.2d 767
• Parties: , 6 O.O.3d 428 LASTER et al., Appellees, v. BOWMAN, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 379

52 Ohio App.2d 379

370 N.E.2d 767, 6 O.O.3d 428

LASTER et al., Appellees, v. BOWMAN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

July 21, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

1. R.C. Chapter 5321 entitled, "Landlords and Tenants," establishes various rights and obligations between landlords and tenants in the State of Ohio and governs the relationship between landlords and tenants with regard to rental agreements of residential premises and supersedes all prior Ohio law concerning the rights and obligations encompassed by the Act. The Landlord and Tenant Act also provides the exclusive remedies now available to landlords and tenants as to the rights and obligations contained in the Act. These rights, obligations, and remedies become part of a rental agreement between a landlord and tenant.

2. A counterclaim filed by a tenant in response to a landlord's complaint in Forcible Entry and Detainer, R.C. Chapter 1923, in which the tenant alleges that the landlord's action for possession of the premises was in retaliation for the tenant's complaint to various governmental agencies and to the landlord regarding housing code violations existing in the premises states a claim upon which relief can be granted under R.C. Chapter 5321 and a trial court's dismissal of such a counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is reversible error.

3. A counterclaim filed by a tenant in response to a landlord's complaint in Forcible Entry and Detainer, R.C. Chapter 1923, in which the tenant alleges that the landlord's failure to comply with housing code regulations breached the rental agreement between the parties and breached the warranty of habitability implied in every rental agreement, states a claim upon which relief can be granted under R.C. Chapter 5321 and a trial court's dismissal of such a counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is reversible error.

John A. Howard, Cleveland, for appellees.

Richard Gurbst and Peter Iskin, Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, for appellant.

KRENZLER, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee Calvin Laster, hereinafter referred to as the appellee, filed a forcible entry and detainer action on August 19, 1975, in the Cleveland Municipal Court against the defendant-appellant, Reola Bowman, hereinafter referred to as the appellant. The purpose of the action was to evict the appellant from certain premises at 1105 East 114th Street, Cleveland, Ohio, for non-payment of rent. The appellant subsequently filed a poverty affidavit, a demand for a jury trial, and a timely answer which asserted four defenses which are not relevant to the issues on appeal and four counterclaims summarized here.

In her first counterclaim, the appellant alleged the following: that during the period of her tenancy she repeatedly notified the appellee of housing code violations, including the lack of heat; that she complained to the Housing Authority of the city of Cleveland and other governmental agencies of housing code violations at the premises; that the appellee brought the action for possession in retaliation for the appellant's complaints to governmental agencies and to the appellee concerning housing code violations on the premises; that the appellee's retaliation by bringing the action for possession is in violation of R.C. 5321.02, and that by virtue of the appellee's actions in violation of R.C. 5321.02 the appellant has been damaged in the amount of $600.

In her second, third and fourth counterclaims, the appellant alleged the following: that during her tenancy she repeatedly notified the appellee of housing code violations, including the lack of heat; that in the maintenance, operation, and renting of the premises the appellee, owner of the premises, is required to comply with the Housing Code of the city of Cleveland; that the premises were at all times during the tenancy of the appellant out of compliance with the housing code; that the appellee did not rectify the housing code violations, although the appellant continued to pay rent during the period of her tenancy; that the appellee's failure and refusal to remedy the conditions with due diligence in accordance with the housing code is a violation of the legal duty owed by the appellee to the appellant; that laws and regulations which exist at the time and making of a contract enter into and form a part of the contract as if they were expressly referred to and incorporated in its terms; that the laws and ordinances of the housing code of the city of Cleveland were in existence at the time of the making of this contract, and that appellee's breach of its obligation imposed by the city of Cleveland is a breach of contract as well as a breach of warranty of habitability, obviating the appellant's obligations to pay rent.

In her second counterclaim, the appellant stated that by virtue of the breach of contract by the appellee, the appellant is entitled to recover the rent paid during her tenancy in the amount of $4,125. In the third counterclaim, the appellant maintains that due to the failure of consideration, the appellee is unjustly enriched by the retention of the rent money paid by the appellant during her period of tenancy. In her fourth counterclaim, the appellant further alleged that the rental of said premises in a condition violative of the ordinances of the city of Cleveland renders the contract illegal, unenforceable and void ab initio and that no benefit may inure to a party in a void contract. The appellant prayed for total damages in the amount of $4,725.

Prior to trial, the parties reached a settlement as to the appellee's claim for possession, and on September 17, 1975, the trial judge entered a judgment of guilty against the appellant without prejudice to the counterclaims of the appellant which were to be tried at a future date.

Subsequently, on October 8, 1975, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appellant's counterclaims pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(6), which permits a pleading to be attacked on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On December 5, 1975, the appellee's motion to dismiss the appellant's counterclaims was granted. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court and assigns two errors:

"The court below erred in granting plaintiffs-appellees' motion to dismiss defendant-appellant's first and second counterclaims by virtue of the fact that the allegations pleaded in said counterclaims state claims upon which relief can be granted pursuant to chapter 5321, O.R.C. (known as Ohio landlord-tenant law).

"The court below erred in granting plaintiffs-appellees' motion to dismiss defendant-appellant's second, third, and fourth counterclaims by virtue of the fact that said claims are recognized and supported by existing relevant case law."

The Ohio legislature adopted R.C. Chapter 5321, entitled "Landlords and Tenants," which became effective November 4, 1974. This new law, which establishes various rights and obligations between landlords and tenants in the state of Ohio, now governs the relationship between such parties with regard to rental agreements on residential premises and supersedes all prior Ohio law concerning the rights and obligations encompassed by the act. The new law also provides the exclusive remedies now available to landlords and tenants as to the rights and obligations contained in the Act. See Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co. (1944), 144 Ohio St. 195, 197, syl. 13, 58 N.E.2d 381. These rights, obligations and remedies encompassed by the statute become part of the rental agreement between a landlord and tenant.

The following is a summary of the relevant provisions of the new landlords and tenants statute.

I. Obligations of Landlords and Tenants.

A. Obligations of Landlords.

A landlord who is a party to a rental agreement of residential premises is now subject to certain specific obligations. These include complying with the requirements of all applicable building, housing, health and safety codes which materially affect health and safety; making all repairs and doing whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition; keeping all common areas in a safe and sanitary condition; maintaining in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning fixtures and appliances, and elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by him; and supplying running water, and reasonable amounts of hot water and heat at all times. Where there are four or more dwelling units in the same structure, the landlord must provide and maintain appropriate receptacles for the removal of ashes, garbage, rubbish, and other waste incidental to the occupancy of the dwelling unit and arrange for their removal. R.C. 5321.04.

A landlord also must not abuse his right of access to rented premises and except in emergencies he must give reasonable notice of his intent to enter and may enter only at reasonable times. R.C. 5321.04(A)(7)-(8).

A landlord may not retaliate against a tenant by increasing rent, decreasing services that are due the tenant, or bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession of the tenant's premises because the tenant has complained to a governmental agency of a violation of a building, housing, health, or safety code for a violation that materially affects health and safety, because the tenant has complained to the landlord of any violation of R.C. 5321.04 or because the tenant joined with other tenants for the purpose of negotiating or dealing collectively with the landlord on any of the terms and conditions of the rental agreement. R.C. 5321.02(A)(1)-(3).

Further, landlords are prohibited from initiating any act, including termination of utilities or services, exclusion from the premises, or threat of any unlawful act, against a tenant, or a tenant whose...