2019 Ohio 12
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2015 Leah Smith rented apartment #4 in a CBert-owned building; each apartment had two labelled basement storage units (large and small) corresponding to the apartment number.
- After apartment #1 was vacated in 2016, CBert notified the former tenant to remove items; when they were not removed CBert hired a waste-removal company to clear Storage Unit #1 and disposed of the items.
- Smith alleges the discarded items were hers, claiming the building manager (an Oberer employee) had given her permission to use Storage Unit #1; she submitted an affidavit and a photo showing a faint handwritten "4" on Unit #1's frame.
- CBert submitted the affidavit of its district property manager denying any tenant use of non-assigned storage and asserting CBert had no notice Smith stored items in Unit #1.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CBert, finding Smith's affidavit self-serving and insufficient; Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did a genuine issue of material fact exist whether CBert (through its manager) authorized Smith to use Storage Unit #1? | Smith: manager verbally authorized her to use Unit #1; photo shows a handwritten "4" on Unit #1. | CBert: tenants may use only storage units assigned to their apartment; Smith was not authorized to use Unit #1. | Yes. Smith's affidavit and photo created a genuine issue for trial. |
| Did a genuine issue of material fact exist whether CBert knew items in Unit #1 belonged to Smith? | Smith: manager's permission and her use put CBert on notice. | CBert: it had no knowledge or notice that Smith stored items in Unit #1. | Yes. The court found Smith's affidavit sufficient to rebut CBert's denial. |
| Was Smith's affidavit inadmissible as merely self-serving and thus insufficient to defeat summary judgment? | Smith: affidavit is competent, based on personal knowledge, and Civ.R. 56 imposes no corroboration requirement. | CBert: affidavit is self-serving and unsupported; trial court criticized lack of manager deposition. | No. The court held the affidavit was more than conclusory and could create a genuine factual dispute. |
| Did CBert violate R.C. 5321.04(A)(8) by entering Storage Unit #1 without notice? | Smith: statutory right to notice of landlord entry applies; CBert entered without notice. | CBert: statutory notice requirement applies to dwelling units, not separate basement storage units. | No. The statute governs entry of "dwelling unit"; basement storage units are not dwelling units, so CBert entitled to summary judgment on the statutory claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (summary judgment standard)
- GNFH, Inc. v. West Am. Ins. Co., 172 Ohio App.3d 127 (2d Dist. 2007) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Sacksteder v. Gisslen, 197 Ohio App.3d 484 (2d Dist. 2011) (nonmovant affidavit can rebut movant's averments)
- State v. Henry, 96 N.E.3d 1139 (Ohio 2017) (discussion of credibility of self-serving affidavits in postconviction context)
- Gibson v. Shephard, 87 N.E.3d 846 (8th Dist. 2017) (storage locker not a "dwelling unit" under R.C. 5321.01(F))