Laster v. Bowman

370 N.E.2d 767, 52 Ohio App. 2d 379, 6 Ohio Op. 3d 428, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 6966
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 21, 1977
Docket35696
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 370 N.E.2d 767 (Laster v. Bowman) 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
Laster v. Bowman, 370 N.E.2d 767, 52 Ohio App. 2d 379, 6 Ohio Op. 3d 428, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 6966 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Krenzler, J.

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'appeUánt has been damaged in the amount of $600:

In her second, third and fourth counterclaims, the appellant alleged the following: that during her tenancy *381 she repeatedly, notified , the appellee of housing code.■ viola--. tions, including the' lack of. heat; that in'the .maintenance,, operation, and renting of the premises the appellee, owner of the premises, is réquired 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 compli-. anee with the housing,codé; 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 appéllant 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 «6 initio and that no benefit may inüre 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. appelléé’s claim for possession; and on September 17,1975, the trial judge entéréd a judgment of guilty against: the- *382 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-appel-lees’ 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-appel-lees’ motion to dismiss defendant-appéllant’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. 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.

*383 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 alb 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 woi'king 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. E. 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. E. C. 5321.04(A)(7)-(8). . .

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

Related

Lagunzad v. Parma Estates, L.L.C.
2025 Ohio 1368 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Dream Feel Homes, Ltd. v. Mayes
2023 Ohio 4342 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Suburban Realty, L.P. v. MD Vape & Tobacco, L.L.C.
2023 Ohio 3198 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Vallejo v. Haynes
2018 Ohio 4623 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Geoffrey M. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls
395 F.3d 291 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)
Radvansky v. Olmsted Falls
Sixth Circuit, 2005
City of Lakewood v. Novak
746 N.E.2d 719 (Lakewood Municipal Court, 2000)
Meacham v. Miller
606 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
Chernin v. Welchans
641 F. Supp. 1349 (N.D. Ohio, 1986)
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. BPS Co.
491 N.E.2d 365 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1985)
Knickerbocker Building Services, Inc. v. Phillips
485 N.E.2d 260 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1984)
Howard v. Simon
480 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1984)
Frenchtown Villa v. Meadors
324 N.W.2d 133 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
Cubbon v. Locker
450 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1982)
Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc.
427 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981)
Thrash v. Hill
407 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)
Drake v. Menczer
425 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
370 N.E.2d 767, 52 Ohio App. 2d 379, 6 Ohio Op. 3d 428, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 6966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laster-v-bowman-ohioctapp-1977.