2018 Ohio 1751
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Adams leased an apartment from Re/Max under a 12-month lease (term ended Mar. 31, 2017) with a holdover clause creating a month-to-month tenancy at a specified rent.
- Re/Max sent renewal offers twice; the March 9, 2017 letter presented four options (including moving out or month-to-month at higher rent) and stated rent increases would be effective May 1, 2017; it did not state a response deadline.
- Adams initialed the option to move out, wrote May 1, 2017 as her move-out date, returned keys on Apr. 29, 2017, and provided a forwarding address.
- Re/Max refused to return Adams’s $625 security deposit, claiming she failed to give 30 days’ notice required for termination of a month-to-month tenancy.
- Municipal court awarded Adams return of the deposit; Re/Max appealed. The appellate majority reversed, holding Adams remained a holdover tenant required to give 30 days’ notice and thus Re/Max could lawfully withhold the deposit; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adams was required to give 30 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy | Adams: her renewal form selecting "move out" with May 1 move-out sufficed; Re/Max’s letter was ambiguous and lacked a response deadline | Re/Max: Adams held over into a month-to-month tenancy and statutory/lease 30-day notice applied; failure to give 30 days allowed application of deposit to rent | Majority: Adams was a holdover tenant; 30-day notice required and not provided; reversal of trial court judgment |
| Whether Re/Max’s renewal letter effectively terminated the holdover tenancy or altered the lease such that 30-day notice did not apply | Adams: letter created ambiguity and offered a move-out option she timely selected | Re/Max: letter merely offered new terms; silence or acceptance of rent creates month-to-month tenancy under prior law | Majority: letter did not relieve tenant of 30-day notice; tenant remained bound to notice requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (establishes presumption of correctness for trial court findings and standard of appellate review)
- Capella III L.L.C. v. Wilcox, 940 N.E.2d 1026 (10th Dist.) (holding a holdover is a tenant at sufferance and describing effect of holdover)
- Craig Wrecking Co. v. S. G. Loewendick & Sons, Inc., 38 Ohio App.3d 79 (landlord’s acceptance of rent implies election to treat tenant as holdover)
- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. West, 57 Ohio St. 161 (same principle on acceptance of rent and holdover)
- Bowman v. Community Mgt. Corp., 14 Ohio App.3d 31 (landlord may apply security deposit to unpaid rent where tenant failed to give required notice)