Reid v. Plainsboro PartnersReid v. Plainsboro Partners
{¶ 2} Appellant lived in an apartment at Olde Mill Lake Apartments, a building owned by her father, for several years without paying rent. In August 2004, appellant alleges that she was diagnosed with a disabling condition that required she use a wheelchair. She requested that a wheelchair ramp be installed at the apartment building. Appellees installed a wheelchair ramp, but appellаnt considered it unsafe and outside city code and the parties could not agree regarding who should pay for the modifications.
{¶ 3} In October 2004, appellees requested that appellant sign a lease agreement and pay $550/month in rent. Appellant filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission alleging illegal retaliation for her handicap and her attempts to assert her rights. Appellant's twin sister, Margaret Swartz, also assisted appellant in asserting her rights. The parties also could not agree regarding other issues, including the installation of a peephole in appellant's apartment door, constructiоn of a handicap parking space and the accompanying sign, and keeping the area clear of ice and snow.
{¶ 4} In January 2005, the parties signed a Conciliation and Consent Agreement, which was reduced to a final order by the Ohio Civil Rights Commissiоn on March 17, 2005. Appellees paid appellant $13,325 in damages. *3
{¶ 5} In December 2004, appellant filed a second complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. In March 2005, appellees requested that appellant sign a lease agreement and pay $650/month in rent. In June 2005, appellees began eviction proceedings, which appellant contends were unlawful. Amended Cоmplaint, at ¶ 84. Appellant alleged that appellees forced her to vacate the premises through the ongоing harassment, intimidation, and threatening behavior. Amended Complaint at ¶ 93.
{¶ 6} In her amended complaint, appellant contеnds that appellees' actions by requiring her to sign a lease resulted in disparate treatment for appellant beсause they treated her differently than her siblings, who were similarly-placed individuals. Amended Complaint, at ¶ 75.
{¶ 7} Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment1 asserting that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to hear appellant's claims because the Ohio Civil Rights Commission had specifically rеserved jurisdiction through March 17, 2007 and appellant had not filed a petition for judicial review of the order within 30 days pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 8} Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and raised the following assignments of error:
*4I. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED ORC
4112.06 (H) THUS IMPROPERLY DISMISSING THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.II. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
{¶ 9} Before addressing the assignments оf error, we must determine whether this order constitutes a final appealable order, as this court may entertain only thosе appeals from final judgments or orders.Noble v. Colwell (1989),
(B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without rеtrial, when it is one of the following:
(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and рrevents a judgment;
(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary appliсation in an action after judgment;
(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial;
(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy * * *[;]
* * *
(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained as a class action.
{¶ 10} An order of a court is a final appealable order only if the requirements of both R.C.
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action * * * whether arising out of the same or separate transactions, or when multiple parties аre involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon аn express determination that there is no just reason for delay. In the absence of a determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not terminate the *5 action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
{¶ 11} This case was consolidated in the common pleas court withFriel v. Swartz, Franklin C.P. No. 05-CVH-05-5825 on February 17, 2006. That case had not been resolved when summary judgment was granted in this cаse and the decision and entry does not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language. In Mezerkor v. Mezerkor (1994),
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the order appealed from is not a final appealable order and this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, thus, the appeal is dismissed. Apрellees' motion for an award of attorney fees is denied.
Appeal dismissed; motion for attorney fees denied.