In a decision that overturned the judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing Division, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that housing providers in the state do not need to demonstrate compliance with Local Rule 3.015 (“local rule”), which requires that housing providers establish compliance with Cleveland Codified Ordinance 365.04, Cleveland’s lead-safe certification ordinance, as a precondition to obtaining an eviction.
Background and Procedural History
The plaintiff-appellant, Shaker House, is the owner of an apartment complex known as the “Shaker House Apartments” in Cleveland, Ohio. The defendant-appellee, Christopher Daniel, is a resident of Shaker House Apartments. In July 2021, Daniel failed to pay rent in accordance with the parties’ lease agreement. Shaker House served Daniel with a three-day notice to vacate; however, Daniel did not vacate the premises. As a result, in August 2021, Shaker House filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer in the Cleveland housing court. Except for Local Rule 3.015, the parties agree that Shaker House complied with all other requirements of Ohio’s forcible entry and detainer statutes for obtaining restitution of the premises and all the local rules of the housing court. In its complaint for forcible entry and detainer, Shaker House indicated that it was not complying with the local rule because the rule was unenforceable. A magistrate subsequently denied Shaker House’s claim for restitution of the premises solely due to its noncompliance with the local rule. Shaker House objected to the magistrate’s ruling; however, the trial court overruled the objections and entered a judgement based on the magistrate’s ruling. Shaker House appealed the trial court’s judgement to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Shaker House argued that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim due to its failure to comply with the local rule, arguing that the rule was unenforceable because it conflicted with Shaker House’s substantive rights under Ohio’s forcible entry and detainer statutes. The Court of Appeals agreed with Shaker House.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The appeals court decision, authored by Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, concluded that the lead-free eviction rule was not a basis for denying an eviction claim under Ohio’s eviction statutes. The court held that the local rule “effectively add[ed] an additional element to an eviction cause of action that is not required by the eviction statutes”, further noting that courts may not add or delete elements to statutory claims by judicial fiat.
Though Daniel did not file an appellee brief, several amici (“friends of the court”) filed a brief in support of Daniel. The amici argued that because the housing court has exclusive jurisdiction over housing matters and enforcement of housing codes, it has the power to block summary evictions. However, the court of appeals disagreed with this analysis holding that under the relevant statute, the housing court has exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action to enforce local ordinances (noting that eviction actions are not civil actions to enforce local ordinances).
The court also made it clear that there is no authority in the eviction statutes that give the housing court authority to prevent an eviction due to a building code violation. The court explained that under the relevant statute, if a property is in violation of local ordinances, the remedy is to prohibit re-rental of the unit until the conditions have been corrected.
Most importantly, the court held that the lead-free eviction rule was invalid because it conflicts with housing provider’s substantive rights under Ohio’s eviction statutes. Citing the Ohio Constitution, the court stated that the housing court is authorized to adopt local rules of practice provided the rules are consistent with the rules promulgated by the Ohio Supreme Court, which “shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”
The court defined substantive law as “that body of law which creates, defines and regulates the rights of the parties.” The court then explained that while Ohio’s forcible entry and detainer statutes allows the housing court to block the re-rental of a unit, it does not authorize the housing court to prevent an eviction due to a building code violation. As such, the local rule conflicts with the relevant forcible detainer and entry statute because it imposes an additional requirement for obtaining evictions not included in the statute.
Lastly, the court dismissed the amici’s argument that Shaker House was not entitled to restitution of the property because Shaker House had “unclean hands” as a result of its noncompliance with the lead-safe certification ordinance. The court dismissed this argument holding that forcible entry and detainer is a statutory remedy, not an action in equity; therefore, the housing court may not use equitable powers to frustrate the purpose of the forcible entry and detainer statutes, which is to provide a speedy method for the recovery of possession of leased property.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to grant Shaker House’s forcible entry and detainer claim with 30 days of the Court’s judgment.