Kettering Square Apts. v. Crawford
2017 Ohio 9054
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kettering Square Apartments (KSA) served tenant Marshie Crawford (a resident of federally subsidized housing) a 30‑day termination notice on Nov. 23, 2016, alleging repeated housekeeping inspection failures (inspected May 19 and re‑inspected June 27, 2016). KSA later served shorter notices in Dec. and Jan.; Crawford did not vacate.
- KSA filed a forcible entry and detainer action; a magistrate granted restitution on Mar. 14, 2017, and the trial court adopted that decision and issued a writ ordering vacatur by Mar. 23.
- Crawford filed objections, sought a stay, and appealed various trial‑court entries; the trial court initially denied a stay, then stayed execution after appeals and required a use-and-occupancy bond. KSA did not file appellate briefs.
- Key factual evidence included photographs from inspections and testimony about the condition; Crawford’s counsel had sent a Sept. 1 letter requesting a two‑week reasonable accommodation for her disability.
- Crawford’s appellate claims challenged: (1) the sufficiency of the termination notice, (2) waiver of the breach by KSA accepting rent, (3) KSA’s failure to grant a reasonable accommodation, and (4) trial‑court procedural rulings on stays and on using Civ.R. 53 objections in forcible‑detainer proceedings.
- The appellate court reviewed the merits de novo where necessary and affirmed the magistrate’s and trial court’s rulings in all appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (KSA) | Defendant's Argument (Crawford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion for stay (Mar. 20 entry) | N/A — court later granted stay | Court erred in denying stay | Moot; overruled (stay later granted) |
| Whether Civ.R. and Civ.R.53 objection procedure applies in forcible‑entry actions | Forcible‑entry is summary; Civ.R.1(C) limits application of rules; direct appeal and supersedeas procedures are proper | Objections to magistrate should be permitted; Civ.R.53 protections apply | Trial court’s overruling of objections harmless; objections in these summary actions are not the proper route to prevent eviction—direct appeal and stay/ bond procedure is the effective remedy |
| Whether the Nov. 23, 2016 termination notice was insufficiently specific | Notice and accompanying inspections/photographs and communications provided adequate specificity under statute and HUD regulation | Notice failed to identify specific acts/omissions; KSA did not introduce the inspection reports/letter into evidence | Notice was sufficiently specific; evidence showed Crawford knew the deficiencies and could prepare a defense; assignment overruled |
| Whether KSA waived the termination by accepting rent after notice | KSA ceased accepting rent after Nov. notice; earlier rent acceptance occurred before termination and while cure was still possible | Acceptance of rent after breach waived the notice | No waiver: last rent accepted was Aug. 2016; KSA did not accept rent after serving the Nov. notice; assignment overruled |
| Whether KSA failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for disability | KSA effectively permitted months to cure and did not need to grant the requested two‑week extension beyond that | KSA ignored the Sept. request and thus failed to engage in the accommodation process | Overruled: KSA afforded more time than requested and the tenant had months and still did not cure; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial American Dev. Co. v. Griffith, 48 Ohio St.3d 72, 549 N.E.2d 513 (Ohio 1990) (Civ.R.1(C) limits application of Civil Rules in forcible entry and detainer actions and former automatic‑stay provisions do not apply)
- Smith v. Flesher, 12 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1967) (appellate reversal requires showing that error was prejudicial)
- Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Goodin, 10 Ohio St. 557 (Ohio 1859) (record must affirmatively show that an error was prejudicial to justify reversal)