2013 Ohio 2905
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Masten leased an apartment from K&D Management (Landlord) for Oct 5, 2010–Sep 30, 2011; lease required 60 days’ notice to decline renewal.
- Masten assisted another resident and filed an OCRC fair-housing complaint alleging disability discrimination by Landlord; she filed her own OCRC charge in Nov 2010.
- Landlord sought to have Masten drop her charge; Masten agreed only if discriminatory practices ceased. When the charge was not dropped, Landlord issued an 81-day notice of nonrenewal on July 12, 2011, making Masten a holdover after Sep 30, 2011.
- Landlord served a three-day notice to vacate and sued for forcible entry and detainer; Masten counterclaimed under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Ohio Fair Housing Act alleging discriminatory/retaliatory nonrenewal.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Landlord on the forcible-entry claim, reasoning a holdover tenant cannot assert a retaliation defense under R.C. 5321.03(A)(4), but denied summary judgment on Masten’s counterclaims; Masten appealed.
- The appellate court reversed the eviction order and remanded, holding that a tenant may assert a discrimination/retaliation defense under state and federal fair-housing laws in a forcible-entry action despite the R.C. 5321.03(A)(4) holdover exception to landlord-tenant retaliation defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a holdover tenant is barred from raising retaliatory/discriminatory eviction defenses in a forcible entry and detainer action | Landlord: R.C. 5321.03(A)(4) permits eviction of holdover tenants and precludes retaliation defense | Masten: FHA and Ohio Fair Housing Act permit discrimination/retaliation defenses/counterclaims even in forcible-entry proceedings | Appellate court: Tenant may assert discrimination/retaliation claims under FHA/R.C. Chapter 4112 in a forcible-entry action; trial court erred to rely on R.C. 5321.03(A)(4) to bar them |
| Whether Indian Hills and Siegler control to bar Masten’s FHA/Ohio Act claims | Landlord: Indian Hills/Siegler bar raising retaliation as defense by a holdover | Masten: Those cases arose under R.C. 5321.02 contexts and are distinguishable from fair-housing discrimination claims | Appellate court: Distinguished Indian Hills and Siegler and declined to extend their bar to FHA/Ohio Act discrimination/retaliation claims |
| Whether the trial court’s eviction order must be vacated pending adjudication of discrimination claims | Landlord: Eviction valid because statutory holdover remedy applied and three-step process followed | Masten: Eviction interferes with statutory and federal fair-housing protections and must be vacated to allow adjudication | Appellate court: Vacated eviction and remanded for determination of whether Landlord violated the Acts |
| Whether appellate court should overrule Indian Hills | Masten: Indian Hills wrongly decided, should be reversed | Landlord: Indian Hills stands and is controlling | Appellate court: Declined to overrule Indian Hills generally; limited it to its facts and distinguished it from FHA/Ohio Act claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Siegler v. Batdorff, 63 Ohio App.2d 76 (Ohio Ct. App.) (holdover tenants and retaliatory-defense limitations under landlord-tenant law)
- Miele v. Ribovich, 90 Ohio St.3d 439 (Ohio 2000) (recognizing unlawful discrimination as a defense in forcible-entry actions)
- Edwards v. Habib, 397 F.2d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (retaliatory eviction doctrine and limits on landlord’s right not to renew)
- Maki v. Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 1996) (prima facie framework for disability-discrimination eviction claims)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)