Filby v. Stocker Dev., L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 9002
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Filby rented an apartment from Stocker Development (Stocker) in May 2015, paid a $650 security deposit, and moved out in June 2016 after one year.
- After move-out, a joint walk-through occurred; carpets were dry and Filby had steam-cleaned them. Filby texted a forwarding address and offered to remove a washer/dryer she left behind.
- Stocker later discovered persistent odor and moisture issues; carpet and padding were found moldy and saturated after additional cleaning and removal.
- Stocker withheld Filby’s security deposit, asserting needed flooring replacement; Stocker did not provide an itemized list of deductions within 30 days as required by R.C. 5321.16(B).
- Filby sued for return of the security deposit and statutory damages; the trial court consolidated related cases, found Stocker wrongfully withheld the deposit because Stocker failed to prove Filby caused the damage, awarded Filby the balance of the deposit, equal statutory damages, interest, and $1,500 in attorney’s fees.
- Stocker appealed, arguing (1) findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) Filby’s testimony was unreliable, (3) attorney’s fees were improper, and (4) withholding the deposit was justified because damages consumed any refund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant wrongfully withhold the security deposit under R.C. 5321.16? | Filby: Stocker failed to prove she caused the damage and also failed to timely provide an itemized deduction; therefore withholding was unlawful. | Stocker: Damage existed and consumed the deposit; thus no itemized notice was necessary because no refund was owed. | Court: Stocker wrongfully withheld the deposit — Stocker failed to prove Filby caused the damage and failed to comply with the statute’s mandatory notice requirement. |
| Was the trial court’s factual finding (causation/damage) against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Filby: Trial court credibility determinations supported finding Stocker did not prove causation. | Stocker: Trial court lost its way; evidence showed mold/need for replacement attributable to tenant. | Court: No — reviewing court defers to trial factfinder; record supports that Stocker failed to prove tenant caused the damage. |
| Is an award of attorney’s fees to Filby appropriate and supported? | Filby: Statute mandates recovery of attorney’s fees when landlord wrongfully withholds deposit; submitted invoice and docket support reasonable fees. | Stocker: No fee agreement was introduced; fees are therefore improper. | Court: Yes — statutory entitlement controls; trial court reasonably found hours/rate supported and Exhibit (invoice) and docket justified the award. |
| Can landlord avoid statutory damages/fees by claiming no refund due? | Filby: Mandatory statutory notice requirement applies regardless; failure triggers statutory remedies. | Stocker: If no refundable balance exists, landlord need not comply with itemization requirement. | Court: No exception — the statute’s plain mandatory language requires compliance; failure entitles tenant to statutory damages and fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (manifest-weight review framework)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (presumption favoring trial court factfindings in manifest-weight review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Vardeman v. Llewellyn, 17 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1985) (statutory remedies for wrongful withholding of security deposit are mandatory)
- DeHass, State v., 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility of witnesses is for the trier of fact)
- Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (Ohio 1944) (unambiguous statutes must be applied as written)