Amba Invests. v. Clark
2022 Ohio 43
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Clark leased a West Chester residence from Amba for $1,650/month and paid a one‑month security deposit.
- Clark fell behind on rent (December 2019–January 2020); Amba twice told him to vacate (initially by Jan. 20, later by Jan. 17). Clark removed most belongings, returned keys on Jan. 20, and gave a forwarding address.
- Amba filed forcible entry and detainer and a damages claim; Clark did not appear at the possession hearing, and a writ issued. Clark later answered and asserted two counterclaims: (1) landlord violated R.C. 5321.16 by failing to provide an itemized security‑deposit notice; (2) landlord unlawfully evicted him in violation of R.C. 5321.15 and caused emotional and economic damages.
- At the hearing Amba proved unpaid rent and damages; it retained the entire $1,650 security deposit and sought judgment for additional amounts. The magistrate dismissed Clark’s counterclaims and awarded Amba judgment (net of certain fees); the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- On appeal the court affirmed: it concluded the landlord was required to provide an itemized notice under R.C. 5321.16 but, under Vardeman, damages are limited to the amount wrongfully withheld (and none were here); and it found no unlawful act or provable damages under R.C. 5321.15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 5321.16 requires a written, itemized statement when the landlord applies the entire security deposit to past‑due rent | Clark: statute contains no exception; landlord must provide itemized notice and is liable for damages for failing to do so | Amba: admits no written notice but contends no damages are owed because the entire deposit was lawfully applied to rent | Court: statute on its face requires an itemized notice, but under Vardeman damages attach only to amounts wrongfully withheld; here no amount was wrongfully withheld, so Clark gets no damages and claim was properly dismissed |
| Whether Amba unlawfully evicted Clark in violation of R.C. 5321.15 by accelerating move‑out and by alleged threatening texts | Clark: Aggarwal forced him to leave sooner, sent texts that made him feel threatened, and he suffered emotional and monetary harms | Amba: did not disconnect utilities, change locks, seize property, or threaten unlawful acts; filed eviction after keys returned; no evidence of actionable conduct or damages | Court: no unlawful act or unlawful threat shown under R.C. 5321.15 and no evidence of damages; counterclaim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vardeman v. Llewellyn, 17 Ohio St.3d 24 (1985) (construed R.C. 5321.16(B)–(C); damages limited to the amount wrongfully withheld)
- State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook‑Sugarcreek Local Schools, 163 Ohio St.3d 314 (2020) (admonition against courts rewriting statutory text)
- State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (referenced regarding following controlling text and precedent)