Lloyd v. Roosevelt Props., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 09 August 2018
• Docket Number: No. 105721,105721
• Citation: Lloyd v. Roosevelt Props., Ltd., 2018 Ohio 3163, No. 105721 (Ohio App. Aug 09, 2018)
• Parties: SUSAN LLOYD PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ROOSEVELT PROPERTIES, LTD. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2018 Ohio 3163

SUSAN LLOYD PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ROOSEVELT PROPERTIES, LTD. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

No. 105721

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

August 9, 2018

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CV-15-845388

BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., E.T. Gallagher, P.J., and Keough, J.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ted S. Friedman

32901 Station Street, Suite 105

Solon, Ohio 44139

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Bradley Hull

3681 South Green Road, Suite 208

Beachwood, Ohio 44122

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Roosevelt Investments ("Roosevelt"), brings this appeal challenging the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Susan Lloyd ("Lloyd"), on the following causes of action: breach of warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, breach of contract, and return of security deposit. Specifically, Roosevelt argues that the trial court's findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence and based upon a misapplication of R.C. 5321.07; the trial court erred in its award of attorney fees and various compensatory damages; and the trial court erred when it determined Roosevelt unlawfully withheld Lloyd's security deposit. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} In 2013, Lloyd moved from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Cleveland, Ohio, in an effort to treat her extensive health issues. Lloyd specifically sought out the Cleveland area for its world-renowned hospitals.

{¶3} Roosevelt is the owner of an apartment building located in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. The building consists of 40 individual apartment units. On December 3, 2013, Lloyd and Roosevelt entered into a written lease agreement for a period of 13 months from December 3, 2013 through December 2014. Lloyd took possession of the apartment unit on the following day, December 4, 2013. The monthly rent for Lloyd's unit was $850. At the signing of the lease, Lloyd paid a prorated amount for the month of December 2013 and a security deposit of $900. Per the lease agreement, neither party was permitted to apply Lloyd's security deposit to unpaid rental payments.

{¶4} Lloyd occupied a one-bedroom suite consisting of a living room, kitchen, one bedroom, and one bathroom. The unit was heated by a central boiler system of radiators. Lloyd's unit had three radiators; the living room, kitchen, and bedroom had individual boilers. The apartment building was advertised as a "smoke-free building."

{¶5} On the first day that Lloyd took possession of the apartment unit, December 4, 2013, she called an emergency maintenance number that was provided to her by a Roosevelt manager because she did not have heat in her apartment unit. Lloyd stated she spent the first two nights sleeping in her car because her apartment unit had no heat.¹ Based on these concerns, Lloyd requested that she be let out of the lease. However, the Roosevelt manager stated to Lloyd that "[he had] no intention of letting [Lloyd] out of [her] lease."

{¶6} Over the course of the next few months, Lloyd communicated to the Roosevelt manager various complaints regarding inadequate heat, rodent infestation, cigarette smoke, ice on the pavements and sidewalks, garbage overflow, discolored water, and faulty electricity. For instance, on January 10, 2014, Lloyd advised the manager that she saw a rat in her apartment, that she surmised had entered the apartment through a plumbing access panel in the bathroom. Lloyd also complained of a rat infestation in the basement laundry area. In February 2014, Lloyd then procured the services of the Cleveland Pest Control because Roosevelt failed to fix the rat infestation. A pest technician noted that rat droppings were found behind the plumbing access panel in Lloyd's bathroom. Rat droppings were also observed in a common area of the basement laundry area. On March 3, 2014, Roosevelt was issued a notice of code violation regarding the presence of rodents for the basement common area. On March 10, 2014, theCleveland Heights chief housing inspector requested Roosevelt to provide proof of a receipt from a state-licensed exterminator correcting the infestation.²

{¶7} Lloyd also communicated to Roosevelt that her apartment lacked adequate heat, cigarette smoke was emanating into her apartment, and her apartment lacked drinkable water. Lloyd argued that all of these issues exacerbated her preexisting health issues.

{¶8} Lloyd paid December 2013, January 2014, and February 2014 rent payments directly to Roosevelt as was required by the rental agreement. Thereafter, Lloyd deposited her March and April 2014 rental payments with the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court. Lloyd vacated the premises on April 17, 2014.

{¶9} On July 2, 2014, Lloyd brought this action against Roosevelt in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court. On February 5, 2015, Lloyd filed an amended complaint asserting the following causes of action: negligence, wanton misconduct, breach of warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, breach of contract, and return of security deposit. Roosevelt filed a counterclaim on February 6, 2015, for unpaid rental payments. The case was then transferred to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on May 11, 2015, because the amended complaint sought an amount of damages exceeding $15,000. The case thereafter proceeded to a bench trial.

{¶10} On August 4, 2016, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Lloyd on her claims for breach of warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, breach of contract, and return of security deposit. The trial court determined that Roosevelt's "failure to fix these issues³interfered so substantially with [Lloyd's] possession of the premises that she was forced to leave," thus "entitling [Lloyd] to terminate her lease and recover damages." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 8. The trial court awarded Lloyd actual damages in the amount of $10,514.15, statutory damages in the amount of $900 pursuant to R.C. 5321.16, attorney fees of $19,302.50, and court costs.

{¶11} On September 9, 2017, Roosevelt filed the instant appeal challenging the trial court's judgment. Roosevelt assigns six errors for review:

I. The trial court's finding of liability against Roosevelt for breach of warranty of habitability, breach of contract, and constructive eviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was based upon a misapplication of R.C. 5321.07.

II. The trial court erred when it determined that [Lloyd] was entitled to $19,302.50 in attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 5321.16(C).

III. The trial court's award of $19,302.50 in attorney fees was an abuse of discretion because the award was disproportionate and unreasonable compared to the $900.00 security deposit that [Lloyd] sought to recover.

IV. The trial court abused its discretion when it awarded $6,000.00 in damages based on [Lloyd's] rental payments and security deposit.

V. The trial court abused its discretion when it awarded $4,514.15 in additional compensatory damages.

VI. The trial court erred when it determined that Roosevelt violated R.C. 5321.16(B) by withholding [Lloyd's] security deposit.

Because several of Roosevelt's assignments of error contain interrelated issues of law and fact, we will address these issues together. Further, for ease of discussion, we will address Roosevelt's assignments of error out of order.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Manifest Weight

{¶12} In its first assignment of error, Roosevelt argues that the trial court's findings of breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract, and constructive eviction were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶13} A reviewing court will not reverse a judgment as being against the manifest weight of the evidence when the judgment is supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). An appellate court applies the same manifest weight of the evidence standard in criminal and civil cases. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

{¶14} The appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Eastley at ¶ 20, citing Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 750 N.E.2d 176 (9th Dist.2001), and Thompkins at 387. In weighing the evidence, we are guided by a presumption that the findings of the trier of fact are correct. Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). This presumption arises because the trier of fact had an opportunity "to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony." Id. at 80. Thus, "to the extent that the evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation," a reviewing court will "construe itconsistently with the [trier of fact's verdict]." Berry v. Lupica, 196 Ohio App.3d 687, 2011-Ohio-5381, 965 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Ross v. Ross, 64 Ohio St.2d 203, 414 N.E.2d 426 (1980).

1. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability

{¶15} Ohio's landlord-tenant statute, R.C. Chapter 5321, imposes duties on landlords that did not exist at common law and provides tenants with leverage to redress breaches of those duties. Miller v. Ritchie, 45 Ohio St.3d 222, 224, 543 N.E.2d 1265 (1989). Relevant to the instant case, R.C. 5321.04...