Woda Mgt. & Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Grant
2017 Ohio 7114
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Woda Management (landlord) and Stephen & Mishka Grant (tenants) signed a lease in Nov. 2011 for low-income housing; tenants’ portion of rent was $388 due by the 5th of each month; lease authorized a $20 late fee and expressly reserved landlord’s right to terminate for delinquent rent even if landlord previously accepted late payments.
- Tenants were frequently late on rent over multiple years; landlord initially accepted late payments several times pursuant to lease terms.
- In Aug. 2016 landlord served the Grants with an eviction notice for lease violations (housekeeping, neighbor conflicts). Tenants later tendered rent for September; landlord accepted after legal advice that payments could be accepted while eviction for non-rent lease violations was pending.
- Tenants failed to timely pay October rent; landlord posted a late-rent notice (Oct. 11) and then an eviction notice ordering vacancy by Oct. 19. Tenants attempted to pay after that date; landlord refused and later filed forcible entry and detainer (FED) on Nov. 17, 2016.
- Municipal Court granted writ of restitution for landlord. On appeal, tenants argued (1) landlord’s long-standing practice of accepting late rent created a course of conduct requiring advance notice before enforcing on-time payment, and (2) the trial court failed to consider equitable defenses against forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord’s prior practice of accepting late rent barred eviction without advance notice | Woda: lease expressly preserved landlord’s right to terminate for delinquent rent despite prior acceptance of late payments | Grants: course of conduct estops Woda from enforcing timely-payment clause absent advance notice (lease has 30-day notice provision) | Court: Held for Woda — lease expressly reserved termination-right; no contrary course of conduct created waiver or estoppel |
| Whether trial court erred by not weighing equitable defenses to prevent forfeiture | Woda: enforcement appropriate given lease language and tenants’ conduct; equitable relief not warranted | Grants: forfeiture is inequitable; they could pay damages and lacked malicious intent; trial court failed to consider equities | Court: Affirmed eviction — court reviewed equities itself and denied relief due to tenants’ misconduct, failure to communicate, and underlying non-monetary lease violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Jackson, 67 Ohio St.2d 129 (Ohio 1981) (describing FED statutes as summary, extraordinary, and speedy means to recover possession)
- Quinn v. Cardinal Foods, Inc., 20 Ohio App.3d 194 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (course-of-conduct/estoppel defense can bar immediate enforcement of lease terms inconsistent with parties’ dealings)
- Milbourn v. Aska, 81 Ohio App. 79 (Ohio Ct. App. 1946) (Aska rule: accepting overdue rent can bar forfeiture unless tenant is given notice that strict terms will be enforced)
- Zanetos v. Sparks, 13 Ohio App.3d 242 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (clauses allowing forfeiture for nonpayment of rent are valid; equity may nonetheless relieve forfeiture)
- Gorsuch Homes, Inc. v. Wooten, 73 Ohio App.3d 426 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (courts generally will relieve forfeiture where money damages can compensate landlord; appellate review of equitable determinations follows abuse-of-discretion principles)