Dieter v. Freeman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Dieter v. Freeman

115 N.E.2d 35, 102 Ohio App. 440, 72 Ohio Law. Abs. 426, 2 Ohio Op. 2d 453, 1953 Ohio App. LEXIS 593

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1953

Docket22747

StatusPublished

This text of 115 N.E.2d 35 (Dieter v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dieter v. Freeman, 115 N.E.2d 35, 102 Ohio App. 440, 72 Ohio Law. Abs. 426, 2 Ohio Op. 2d 453, 1953 Ohio App. LEXIS 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per CURIAM:

Plaintiffs paid $75.00 per month for eleven months as rental for an *427 apartment suite listed at $45.00 a month unfurnished by O. P. A., and was awarded triple damages plus $100.00 attorney fees by the Cleveland Municipal Court.

Uncontradieted evidence in the record discloses that the defendants took steps to reclassify as furnished the suite in question. However, when the inspector for O. P. A. visited the premises on an “inspection of furnished suites” the suite had no furniture in it because of it being redecorated and the inspector refused to establish a furnished suite rental value on it despite the fact that furniture for it was stored in the basement. A follow-up inspection was not made by O. P. A. A letter was signed by the plaintiffs, before moving in, to the effect that they wished to use their own furniture by preference although “furniture to furnish this suite is available,” which tends to bear out defendants’ claim that the suite was offered furnished to plaintiffs and that they insisted on using then’ own furniture. O. P. A. rules consider such circumstances the equivalent of renting a furnished suite.

In our opinion these facts do not warrant a conclusion, as found by the trial court, that “the violation * * * was the result of failure to take practical precaution against the violation.” Section 1895, U. S. Code R Title 50.

For the foregoing reasons we believe that justice requires that the judgment be modified to the mere overcharge plus attorney fees of $100.00.

Judgment modified to read $430.00 and costs. Exceptions noted. Order See Journal.

HURD, PJ, KOVACHY, J, SKEEL, J, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Per CURIAM:

Plaintiffs paid $75.00 per month for eleven months as rental for an *427 apartment suite listed at $45.00 a month unfurnished by O. P. A., and was awarded triple damages plus $100.00 attorney fees by the Cleveland Municipal Court.

Uncontradieted evidence in the record discloses that the defendants took steps to reclassify as furnished the suite in question. However, when the inspector for O. P. A. visited the premises on an “inspection of furnished suites” the suite had no furniture in it because of it being redecorated and the inspector refused to establish a furnished suite rental value on it despite the fact that furniture for it was stored in the basement. A follow-up inspection was not made by O. P. A. A letter was signed by the plaintiffs, before moving in, to the effect that they wished to use their own furniture by preference although “furniture to furnish this suite is available,” which tends to bear out defendants’ claim that the suite was offered furnished to plaintiffs and that they insisted on using then’ own furniture. O. P. A. rules consider such circumstances the equivalent of renting a furnished suite.

In our opinion these facts do not warrant a conclusion, as found by the trial court, that “the violation * * * was the result of failure to take practical precaution against the violation.” Section 1895, U. S. Code R Title 50.

For the foregoing reasons we believe that justice requires that the judgment be modified to the mere overcharge plus attorney fees of $100.00.

Judgment modified to read $430.00 and costs. Exceptions noted. Order See Journal.

HURD, PJ, KOVACHY, J, SKEEL, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 N.E.2d 35, 102 Ohio App. 440, 72 Ohio Law. Abs. 426, 2 Ohio Op. 2d 453, 1953 Ohio App. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dieter-v-freeman-ohioctapp-1953.