{¶ 2} This matter began when Adams brought a complaint seeking money damages of $650 from Davenport for his failure to return a security deposit and for unlawfully confiscating certain of his personal property. Davenport counterclaimed seeking $1,165 from Adams for rent and cleanup expenses.
{¶ 3} The matter was heard before an acting judge who issued the following opinion:
{¶ 4} "Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a lease agreement in July of 2002 for premises at 28 East Second Street, Xenia, Ohio. On the expiration of the lease, by agreement, the tenancy became a month-to-month arrangement. Plaintiff was, for the most part, a good tenant with few problems for the Defendant other than some occasional late payments of the monthly rent. Eventually, in April and May of 2005, a neighbor began causing problems for the Plaintiff in the apartment building, and Plaintiff repeatedly complained to the Defendant. Finally, Plaintiff gave notice to the Defendant that the conditions had become unbearable and that he would be vacating the premises in early June of 2005. Plaintiff testified that he had a phone conversation with the Defendant in which the Defendant approved of a reduced amount of rent to be charged to Plaintiff for the few days that he would hold over under the June tenancy. Defendant does not recall this conversation. However, the existence of the conversation has no bearing on the outcome of this matter. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant entered the apartment without Plaintiff's knowledge and removed several personal property items, totaling over $200 without Plaintiff's consent. The Defendant denies any knowledge of these items or that they were missing. Plaintiff further established and the Defendant does not seriously contest that the Plaintiff requested the return of his security deposit in the amount of $250. The Defendant concedes that he knew a forwarding address for the Plaintiff and in fact personally observed the Plaintiff residing in an apartment literally around the corner from the Defendant's premises. Defendant did not return the security deposit, however, alleging that certain damages to the rental property essentially resulted in a forfeiting of the security deposit. The Defendant has not provided an itemized list of the damages or expenses to repair them as required by the Ohio Revised Code.
{¶ 5} "As to the Counterclaim, Defendant acknowledges that the rental agreement for the business storefront at 36 East Second Street, Xenia was with another person and not the Plaintiff. Plaintiff apparently participated in the business operation, but, according to the Defendant, had no rights under the lease agreement. In fact, Defendant points to a provision in the agreement which specifically prohibits subleasing by the original tenant. Nonetheless, after the original tenant vacated the premises, the Defendant continued to accept monthly rent for at least three months from the Plaintiff until the Plaintiff also vacated that premises. At one time, Plaintiff requested a return of the security deposit for the premises, but the Defendant insisted that Plaintiff had no legal rights to the funds or the property. However, Defendant now requests over $1,100 in damages for back rent, cleaning and repair and lost appliances, and alleges that the Plaintiff should be liable for those costs. In fact, Defendant has not even reduced the amount of damages he claims by the security deposit which he retained for this premises.
{¶ 6} "Ohio Revised Code Section
{¶ 7} "However, Plaintiff's other claims for lost personal property items must fail as he has failed to carry his burden of proof on those issues. Specifically, Plaintiff has not provided any documentation of his ownership interest or of the existence of the particular items claimed at the time Defendant entered the apartment. Moreover, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of proof that Defendant is any way responsible for the missing items. Additionally, Plaintiff has not established the value of the items that he claims are missing. As a result, the remainder of Plaintiff's claim for damages will be denied.
{¶ 8} "As to the Counterclaim by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to carry his burden of proof on this matter. Specifically, Defendant himself admits that the original lease prohibited an individual from subletting the premises. Relying on this provision, the Defendant refused to return the original security deposit on this premises to the Plaintiff. Still, Defendant now asserts that because he permitted the Plaintiff to continue to occupy the premises without any legal stake in the property that the Plaintiff is now responsible for certain unpaid rent and damages that may or may not be attributable to the original tenant. Under these conditions, the Court finds the Defendant's Counterclaim to be without merit and hereby dismisses it.
{¶ 9} "In light of all the foregoing, Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the amount of $500, plus court costs and interest at the statutory rate, from the date of the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint, which is June 23, 2005."
{¶ 10} Davenport has filed a brief which fails to comply with the appellate rules in that no assignment of error is set out in the brief. We will assume Davenport is claiming that the judgment below is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Davenport argues that he should not have been required to return the $250 security deposit to Adams because he damaged the rental property beyond normal wear and tear. Davenport contends he was not required to comply with the statutory requirement of providing Adams with an itemized list of damages he had suffered from Adams' tenancy because Adams did not provide him a forwarding address in writing to which the landlord notice could be sent. R.C.
{¶ 11} "(B) Upon termination of the rental agreement any property or money held by the landlord as a security deposit may be applied to the payment of past due rent and to the payment of the amount of damages that the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant's noncompliance with section
{¶ 12} "(C) If the landlord fails to comply with division (B) of this section, the tenant may recover the property and money due him, together with damages in an amount equal to the amount wrongfully withheld, and reasonable attorney fees."
{¶ 13} In Prescott v. Makowski (1983),
{¶ 14} In two recent cases, Cristal v. DRC International,Inc. (1991),
{¶ 15} The evidence is undisputed that Adams did not provide Davenport with a written notice of where the landlord notice could be sent, but the trial court found that Davenport "knew a forwarding address for the Plaintiff and in fact personally observed the Plaintiff residing in an apartment literally around the corner from the Defendant's premise." Indeed, Davenport admitted that he learned of Adams' new address as early as June 7, 2005. (T. 24.) The complaint filed by Adams on June 23, 2005 also listed Adams' address.
{¶ 16} We agree that where the evidence establishes that the landlord actually knew of the tenant's forwarding address so that he could comply with his statutory duties pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 17} If the tenant complies with R.C.
{¶ 18} In summary, the trial court properly awarded Adams $500 on his complaint. This matter is however Remanded to the trial court on Davenport's counterclaim for damages to resolve the unsettled question of damages to the property at 36 East Second Street and the June rent claim. The Judgment of the trial court is Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and is Remanded for further proceedings.