MERRITT, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Phillip Bloom, appeals from a jury verdict and judgment against him in [1189]*1189this housing discrimination case for $33,-101.34 in compensatory damages and $30,-000. 00 in punitive damages. The appellees, Milton and Emma Sutton, are a black married couple who attempted in January, 1973 to purchase a home on Wenhaven Drive in Russell Township, Ohio. The Suttons brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,1982 and 1985 claiming that Phillip Bloom, who lived next door, and seven other neighbors acted to prevent their purchase of the home in order to keep black persons out of the neighborhood. A pendent state law claim alleging malicious prosecution was dismissed by the District Court. During the proceedings, the seven other defendants prevailed, entered into settlement agreements with the Suttons, or were dismissed by the District Court.
The Suttons sought to purchase the house owned by Martin and Sally Hawthorne. The property was subject to a foreclosure decree entered on December 11, 1972, on behalf of Central National Bank. On January 24, 1973, the Hawthornes accepted an offer from the Suttons to purchase the home for $42,000. The agreement was conditioned on the Suttons first selling their own home and on the plumbing of the Hawthorne home being in good working condition. The Hawthornes in turn had the right to continue to show the home to secondary buyers, but if a secondary offer were received, the Suttons had three days to remove the two conditions and finalize the purchase.
After the Suttons and Hawthornes signed the conditional purchase agreement, the appellant became interested in the Hawthorne property. Bloom made a secondary offer on the house which was rejected when the Suttons withdrew their conditions. Despite the Suttons’ purchase agreement, the Bank elected to proceed with a sheriff’s sale of the foreclosed upon property. The Bank is not a party in this case, and no claim of discrimination or breach of contract against it is before us.
One night before the foreclosure sale, Bloom held a meeting of neighbors at his house to organize an attempt to prevent the Suttons from purchasing the Hawthorne home. Bloom collected $1000 from each of three neighbors which, together with his $1000, would provide the $4000 downpayment (10% of their maximum intended bid) for the home. At the sheriff’s sale, Bloom outbid the Suttons with a bid of $40,000. On March 28, 1973, however, the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga County refused to confirm the sheriff’s sale to Bloom finding that the agreement between the Sut-tons and the Hawthornes gave the Suttons the benefit of the owner’s equity of redemption. After several appeals by Bloom, this order was finalized by the Court of Common Pleas on March 18, 1974.
Bloom then brought suit simultaneously in the Court of Common Pleas and in the Federal District Court in May 1974, charging the Suttons with depriving him of his statutory and constitutional rights to purchase the home. The state and federal courts, at both the trial and appellate levels, rejected these actions under the principle of res judicata or for failure to state a claim.
The Suttons then brought this suit in the District Court on July 30, 1976, seeking compensatory and punitive damages to vindicate their rights under the Constitution and under §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985. The Suttons showed at trial that Bloom had assembled his neighbors and pursued his attempts to purchase the Hawthorne property for improper discriminatory motives. The jury found that Bloom violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the Suttons. We are compelled to reverse the decision of the district court because we find that the case is barred by the statute of limitations.
Neither § 1981, which prohibits discrimination in the making or enforcing of contracts,1 nor § 1982, which guarantees equal [1190]*1190rights to purchase property,2 contain statutes of limitations. To ascertain the proper statute of limitations, the court must look to the most analogous state statute. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 180, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 2599, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976); Warner v. Perrino, 585 F.2d 171, 173 (6th Cir.1978) (“Thus, where Congress has not otherwise spoken, federal judges are obliged to apply the law of the forum, which includes state statutes of limitations, to suits brought in federal court.”). The appellant argues that the 180 day statute of limitations contained in the Ohio Fair Housing Act, O.R.C. § 4112.051(A), should apply. The appellees maintain that the District Court was correct when it found the six year statute of limitations contained in O.R.C. § 2305.07 most analogous.
Sections 1981 and 1982 of Title 42 were enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in order to eliminate the vestiges of slavery and racial discrimination. The underlying factual situation in this lawsuit involves the attempt by Bloom to interfere with the Suttons’ equal rights to enter into a contract (§ 1981) and to buy property (§ 1982). Both statutes cover the discrimination present in this case, but that does not imply that each statute may be viewed in isolation when finding the most analogous state statute. The District Court and the appellee isolated the word “contract” in § 1981. They then looked to the Ohio statute, O.R.C. § 2305.07, which governs the statute of limitations for contracts not in writing:
... an action upon a contract not in writing, express or implied, or upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty, shall be brought within six years after the cause thereof accrued.
They have ignored the circumstances surrounding the interference with the Suttons’ right to contract which involve racial discrimination. We believe that the most analogous state statute, when viewing the facts of this case in total, is the Ohio Fair Housing Act. O.R.C. § 4112.02(H) broadly covers discrimination in housing and property ownership, including the right to be free from discrimination when making a contract to purchase a home. The relevant part of § 4112.02(H) provides:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(H) For any person to:
(1) Refuse to sell, transfer, ... or otherwise deny or withhold housing accommodations from any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, handicap or national origin of any prospective owner, occupant, or user of such housing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MERRITT, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Phillip Bloom, appeals from a jury verdict and judgment against him in [1189]*1189this housing discrimination case for $33,-101.34 in compensatory damages and $30,-000. 00 in punitive damages. The appellees, Milton and Emma Sutton, are a black married couple who attempted in January, 1973 to purchase a home on Wenhaven Drive in Russell Township, Ohio. The Suttons brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,1982 and 1985 claiming that Phillip Bloom, who lived next door, and seven other neighbors acted to prevent their purchase of the home in order to keep black persons out of the neighborhood. A pendent state law claim alleging malicious prosecution was dismissed by the District Court. During the proceedings, the seven other defendants prevailed, entered into settlement agreements with the Suttons, or were dismissed by the District Court.
The Suttons sought to purchase the house owned by Martin and Sally Hawthorne. The property was subject to a foreclosure decree entered on December 11, 1972, on behalf of Central National Bank. On January 24, 1973, the Hawthornes accepted an offer from the Suttons to purchase the home for $42,000. The agreement was conditioned on the Suttons first selling their own home and on the plumbing of the Hawthorne home being in good working condition. The Hawthornes in turn had the right to continue to show the home to secondary buyers, but if a secondary offer were received, the Suttons had three days to remove the two conditions and finalize the purchase.
After the Suttons and Hawthornes signed the conditional purchase agreement, the appellant became interested in the Hawthorne property. Bloom made a secondary offer on the house which was rejected when the Suttons withdrew their conditions. Despite the Suttons’ purchase agreement, the Bank elected to proceed with a sheriff’s sale of the foreclosed upon property. The Bank is not a party in this case, and no claim of discrimination or breach of contract against it is before us.
One night before the foreclosure sale, Bloom held a meeting of neighbors at his house to organize an attempt to prevent the Suttons from purchasing the Hawthorne home. Bloom collected $1000 from each of three neighbors which, together with his $1000, would provide the $4000 downpayment (10% of their maximum intended bid) for the home. At the sheriff’s sale, Bloom outbid the Suttons with a bid of $40,000. On March 28, 1973, however, the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga County refused to confirm the sheriff’s sale to Bloom finding that the agreement between the Sut-tons and the Hawthornes gave the Suttons the benefit of the owner’s equity of redemption. After several appeals by Bloom, this order was finalized by the Court of Common Pleas on March 18, 1974.
Bloom then brought suit simultaneously in the Court of Common Pleas and in the Federal District Court in May 1974, charging the Suttons with depriving him of his statutory and constitutional rights to purchase the home. The state and federal courts, at both the trial and appellate levels, rejected these actions under the principle of res judicata or for failure to state a claim.
The Suttons then brought this suit in the District Court on July 30, 1976, seeking compensatory and punitive damages to vindicate their rights under the Constitution and under §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985. The Suttons showed at trial that Bloom had assembled his neighbors and pursued his attempts to purchase the Hawthorne property for improper discriminatory motives. The jury found that Bloom violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the Suttons. We are compelled to reverse the decision of the district court because we find that the case is barred by the statute of limitations.
Neither § 1981, which prohibits discrimination in the making or enforcing of contracts,1 nor § 1982, which guarantees equal [1190]*1190rights to purchase property,2 contain statutes of limitations. To ascertain the proper statute of limitations, the court must look to the most analogous state statute. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 180, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 2599, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976); Warner v. Perrino, 585 F.2d 171, 173 (6th Cir.1978) (“Thus, where Congress has not otherwise spoken, federal judges are obliged to apply the law of the forum, which includes state statutes of limitations, to suits brought in federal court.”). The appellant argues that the 180 day statute of limitations contained in the Ohio Fair Housing Act, O.R.C. § 4112.051(A), should apply. The appellees maintain that the District Court was correct when it found the six year statute of limitations contained in O.R.C. § 2305.07 most analogous.
Sections 1981 and 1982 of Title 42 were enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in order to eliminate the vestiges of slavery and racial discrimination. The underlying factual situation in this lawsuit involves the attempt by Bloom to interfere with the Suttons’ equal rights to enter into a contract (§ 1981) and to buy property (§ 1982). Both statutes cover the discrimination present in this case, but that does not imply that each statute may be viewed in isolation when finding the most analogous state statute. The District Court and the appellee isolated the word “contract” in § 1981. They then looked to the Ohio statute, O.R.C. § 2305.07, which governs the statute of limitations for contracts not in writing:
... an action upon a contract not in writing, express or implied, or upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty, shall be brought within six years after the cause thereof accrued.
They have ignored the circumstances surrounding the interference with the Suttons’ right to contract which involve racial discrimination. We believe that the most analogous state statute, when viewing the facts of this case in total, is the Ohio Fair Housing Act. O.R.C. § 4112.02(H) broadly covers discrimination in housing and property ownership, including the right to be free from discrimination when making a contract to purchase a home. The relevant part of § 4112.02(H) provides:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(H) For any person to:
(1) Refuse to sell, transfer, ... or otherwise deny or withhold housing accommodations from any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, handicap or national origin of any prospective owner, occupant, or user of such housing.
(12) Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person’s having exercised or enjoyed ... any right guaranteed or protected by division (H) of this section
The Ohio Fair Housing Act applies to the factual circumstances of this case. It seeks to protect against the same injustices which the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 sought to combat.
The statute of limitations for actions brought under § 4112.02(H) is contained in O.R.C. § 4112.05(A):
The rights granted by division (H) of section 4112.02 of the Revised Code may be enforced by aggrieved private persons by filing civil actions in a court of common pleas.... A civil action shall be commenced within one hundred eighty days after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred.
Our conclusion is supported by the decision of this Court in Warner v. Perrino, 585 F.2d 171 (6th Cir.1978). In that case, the plaintiff filed suit against the owner of a two-family home in Cleveland alleging that [1191]*1191she had refused to show or rent an apartment to him because he was black. The complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3617. We held that the applicable Ohio statute of limitations for the § 1982 cause of action was the 180 day limit contained in O.R.C. § 4112.051(A). We noted that:
Although section 1982 speaks broadly of contract rights and is wider in scope than either the state and federal fair housing laws, the conduct at issue here involves only an allegation of housing discrimination on the basis of race and falls squarely within the purpose and reach of Ohio’s fair housing laws.
Warner, supra, at 175. Unlike the plaintiff in Warner, the Suttons have included a claim under § 1981 for violation of their contract rights but the essence of their claim is racial discrimination in housing. As in Warner, this “falls squarely within the purpose and reach of Ohio’s fair housing laws,” particularly the proscription in § 4112.02(H)(12) against third-party interference because of race with the right to purchase housing.
The District Court and the appellees rely on another case from this Circuit which applied Ohio’s six year statute of limitations to a § 1981 cause of action. In Mason v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 517 F.2d 520 (6th Cir.1975), the plaintiff charged that the company had engaged in unlawful employment practices by refusing to promote and by discharging him solely because of his race. We held that this § 1981 cause of action was not barred by the 180 day statute of limitations contained in the Ohio Civil Rights Act but was governed instead by O.R.C. § 2305.07 on contracts not in writing.
We do not find Mason controlling in this case because of the difference between Ohio’s statutes of limitations in employment and in housing discrimination cases. The Ohio Civil Rights statute on employment discrimination is governed by the statute of limitations contained in § 4112.05(B) which sets up an administrative as opposed to a judicial process for grievance resolution. The 180 day limitation period pertains to the amount of time within which an injured party must file a complaint with the state civil rights commission. If a complaint is ever filed in court, it is filed by the Commission and not the private litigant. The Commission has an additional 180 days to file a complaint in court. In contrast, the 180 day period provided for in § 4112.-051(A), for housing discrimination, relates to the period within which a grievant must initiate a judicial proceeding. As is made clear in the dicta in Mason, this Court refused to apply the 180 day limit contained in § 4112.05(B) in Mason precisely because a different process — administrative as opposed to judicial — is used in employment discrimination cases brought under the Ohio Civil Rights Act than is used in § 1981 cases. There is no difference between the procedures utilized for state housing discrimination cases and those used for a § 1981 suit.
We noted in Mason that the shorter limitations period of 180 days might have seemed more appropriate to the Ohio legislature when the responsibility for the investigation and development of the case rested with the administrative body rather than with a private litigant. Mason, supra, at 522. In contrast, the Ohio Legislature has clearly found it appropriate to require the private litigant to seek redress for housing discrimination within six months. For these reasons, we apply the holding in Warner and not Mason, and find that the most analogous state statute is the 180 day statute of limitations in § 4112.051(B).
The parties are in agreement that, if applied, the 180 day statute of limitations creates a bar to this action. The discriminatory acts complained of by the Suttons occurred in 1973 and 1974. The Suttons instituted this proceeding in the District Court on July 30, 1976. We need not discuss whether the series of suits initiated by Bloom against the Suttons tolls the statute of limitations because the final order in those proceedings was entered on January 8, 1976 — more than six months prior to the Suttons’ case.
[1192]*1192For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the District Court.