KURTIS JENSEN v. BOULEVARD INVESTMENTS LTD.
No. 103658
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
August 11, 2016
[Cite as Jensen v. Blvd. Invests. Ltd., 2016-Ohio-5325.]
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court Case No. CVI 1500191
BEFORE: McCormack, J., Jones, A.J., and Celebrezze, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 11, 2016
Ted S. Friedman
32901 Station Street #105
Solon, OH 44139
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Bradley Hull
30195 Chagrin Blvd.
Suite 110 North
Pepper Pike, OH 44124
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Boulevard Investments, Ltd., appeals from a judgment of the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court that awarded Boulevard Investmеnt‘s former tenant, Kurtis Jensen, double damages and attorney fees under
Procedural Background
{¶2} Jensen (“Tenant” hereafter) rented a unit in a Cleveland Heights apartment owned by Boulevard Investments, Ltd. (“Landlord” hereafter). The lease was for a term of 12 months from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014. As part of the lease agreement, Tenant paid Landlord a security deposit of $750, the return of which is the subject matter of this appeal.
{¶3} Several months into the lease, the landlord-tenant relationship deteriorated. In November 2013, Tenant filed a complaint against Landlord in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-13-817919. Tenant claimed a breach of the warranty of habitability, alleging Landlord failed to repair, among other items, a leaking kitchen sink, chipped paint on the ceiling and shower walls, a broken window handle, and а broken bulb in a bathroom heat lamp.1 On February 5, Landlord
{¶4} Tenant moved out on June 30, 2014, at the end of his lease term, after being notified by Landlord that his lease would not be renewed. A month later, on July 22, 2014, Landlord notified Tenant it would not return his security deposit and provided a list of damaged items to which the security deposit would apply.
{¶5} On September 2, 2014, Tenant requested leave in the common pleas court case to add his security deposit claim to the case. The trial court did not rule on the motion. At the trial scheduled for the case two days later, neither Landlord nor its counsel appeared. Cоnsequently, the common pleas court entered a judgment against Landlord. Landlord appealed that judgment to this court in Jensen v. Blvd. Invests., Ltd., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102126.
{¶6} While that appeal was pending, on February 24, 2015, Tenant filed the instant case in Cleveland Heights M.C. No. CVI 1500191, for a return of his sеcurity deposit. He sought double damages and attorney fees under
{¶7} Subsequently, on March 5, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102126 and dismissed the appeal. Six weeks after the settlement on the appeal, Landlord filed an answеr on April 17, 2015, in the security deposit case and raised a counterclaim for unpaid rent and attorney fees totaling $3,000.
{¶8} After a hearing, a municipal court magistrate decided the case in favor of Tenant. The magistrate first found that thе security deposit claim was not barred by res
{¶9} After finding Tenant‘s security deposit claim not barred by res judicata, the magistrate determined that Tenant left the premises in generally good condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. The mаgistrate found Tenant not responsible for mold, peeling paint, and a broken storm window, but found a cleaning fee of $75 charged for the stove and oven reasonable. Subtracting the $75 fee from the security deposit, the magistrate found Lаndlord wrongfully withheld $675 of the security deposit. Pursuant to
{¶10} Landlord filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which objections were overruled by the court. On appeal, Landlord raises two assignments of error:
- The Trial Court erred when it concluded that Appellee‘s claim for the failure to return his security deposit was not barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata.
- The Trial Court erred when it awarded Appellee double damages and attorney fees pursuant to
R.C. 5321.16 .
{¶11} A civil judgment that is “supported by some competеnt, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as
Res Judicata
{¶12} Under the first assignment of error, Landlord claims the security deposit matter was barred by res judicata. The claim laсks merit.
{¶13} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “‘[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.‘” Kirkhart v. Keiper, 101 Ohio St.3d 377, 2004-Ohio-1496, 805 N.E.2d 1089, ¶ 5, quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus. An existing final judgment between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims that were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit. Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62, 558 N.E.2d 1178 (1990). Four elements must be met in order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply: “(1) there was a prior valid judgment on the merits; (2) the second action involved the same parties as the first action; (3) the present action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) both actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.” Reasoner v. Columbus, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-800, 2005-Ohio-468, ¶ 5, citing Grava at 381-382.
{¶14} Here, regardless of whether Tenant‘s
The Forwarding Address Requirement for a Return of Security Deposit
{¶15} Under the second assignment of error, Landlord argues the trial court erred in awarding Tenant double damages and attorney fees under
{¶16}
Upon termination of the rental agreement any proрerty 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 noncompliаnce with section 5321.05 of the Revised Code or the rental agreement. Any deduction from the security deposit shall be itemized and identified by the landlord in a written
notice delivered to the tenant together with the amount due, within thirty days after termination of the rental agreement and delivery of possession. The Tenant shall provide the landlord in writing with a forwarding address or new address to which the written notice and amount due from the landlord may be sent. If the tenant fails to provide the landlоrd with the forwarding or new address as required, the tenant shall not be entitled to damages or attorneys fees under division (C) of this section.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶17} Furthermore, under
{¶18} The double damages afforded by
{¶19} Accordingly, although the statute requires a tenant to provide the landlord in writing a forwarding address, for equity‘s sake, the courts have avoided a hyperteсhnical application of the statute. Instead, the courts have considered
{¶20} Therefore, “where a landlord has a reasonable avenue to contact the former tenant, the landlord‘s statutory duty under
{¶21} Here, on July 22, 2014, while the common pleas court case was pending, Landlord sent a letter to Tenant, by way of electrоnic mail to Tenant‘s counsel, informing Tenant that his security deposit would not be returned. The magistrate found that,
{¶22} The facts of the instant case are similar to Wehrley. In that case, the landlord did not receive a forwarding address in writing but the tenant provided the landlord with the name and address of the tenant‘s attorney. The Twеlfth District recognized the purpose of the statute would be defeated if a burden was imposed on a landlord to track down the former tenant; however, as the court reasoned, where the landlord had a reasonable basis to believe that the tenant could be contacted through the tenant‘s attorney, it would thwart the purpose of the statute to refuse to give effect to its provisions. Wehrley, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA99-11-191, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 256 at 13.
{¶23} Similarly here, Tenant was represented by counsel in the pending common pleas case when Tenant vacated the premises in June 2014. In fact, Landlord informed Tenant that his security deposit would not be returned through electronic mail sent to Tenant‘s counsel. Thus, Landlord had a reаsonable avenue to contact Tenant to return his security deposit. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly gave effect to the provisions of
{¶24} The municipal court‘s judgment is supported by competent, credible evidence from the record. The second assignment of error is without merit.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the municipal court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., A.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR