Webb v. C & J Properties, L.L.C.Webb v. C & J Properties, L.L.C.
Bill W. Cummins, 8216 Princeton Glendale Road, Suite 162, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for defendant-appellee
O P I N I O N
BRESSLER, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Earl Webb, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting a motion to dismiss in favor of defendant-appellee, C and J Properties, LLC (C&J). We affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶2} Webb owned a mobile home and rented space in the Midwest Mobile Home Park, which was owned by C&J. The parties’ month-to-month rental agreement lasted from August 2000 until November 2007.
{¶3} On June 30, 2007, Webb and a friend smelled strong odors emanating
{¶4} Webb immediately contacted the property manager who informed Webb that due to the upcoming July 4 weekend, no repairs would be made. Webb tried to contact the Butler County Health Department (Health Department), but found the offices closed. Webb then tried calling 911, and was directed to contact the Health Department once it opened the following Monday. Unable to reach anyone else, Webb contacted People Working Cooperatively, an emergency service that aids low-income members of the community, who agreed to pay for a plumber to address the problem. The plumber investigated the situation under Webb‘s home, identified a main sewer line clog, and snaked out the portion of the sewer pipe running under Webb‘s mobile home.
{¶5} Webb and his son stayed at the homes of relatives and friends due to the odor that remained after the seepage stopped. Webb continued to contact the Health Department, and eventually filed a written complaint regarding the sewage under his mobile home. According to a report from the Health Department, another plumber came to Webb‘s trailer on July 6, 2007 at the behest of C&J, but Webb was not home. Without Webb‘s permission, the second plumber could not remove the skirting from the mobile home to investigate under the trailer. However, the Health Department report specifically noted the absence of sewage outside the trailer skirt. On July 27, 2007, a representative from the Health Department and Curt Powell, the owner and president of C&J, came to Webb‘s home and spread lime and sand under the trailer. The Health Department closed Webb‘s complaint soon thereafter.
{¶6} In a letter dated August 16, 2007, Powell, on behalf of C&J, terminated the
{¶7} Webb filed a pro se complaint in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, claiming that C&J‘s eviction constituted a violation of
{¶8} Regarding Webb‘s legal action, the trial court suggested that he seek counsel after he appeared pro se at multiple hearings and his motions failed to conform to local rules. Once Webb sought legal counsel, the trial court granted leave to file an amended complaint, and Webb filed the amended complaint on April 7, 2008. Webb alleged that C&J retaliated against him for making complaints to the Health Department, that he suffered damages as a result of the sewage seepage, and that C&J‘s conduct was an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
{¶9} During a bench trial, Webb presented evidence and the trial court heard testimony from Webb, his sister, and a Butler County Health Department supervisor. At the close of Webb‘s case, C&J moved for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to
{¶11} In his assignment of error, Webb asserts that the trial court erred in granting C&J‘s motion to dismiss.1 This argument lacks merit.
{¶12} According to
{¶13} ”
{¶14} The trial court weighed the evidence and determined that
{¶15}
Retaliation
{¶16} Regarding the first section of the statute, the language clearly states that an operator is prohibited from retaliating against a tenant should the tenant report issues to an appropriate governmental agency. While Webb argues that C&J retaliated against him because he complained to the Health Department, his assertion is not supported by the record.
{¶17} “The finder of fact must independently determine the reasons behind a
{¶18} Webb failed to provide evidence that C&J‘s actions were motivated by retaliation. Specifically, Webb failed to present any evidence that C&J terminated its rental agreement because of Webb‘s complaint to the Health Department. Although Curt Powell appeared at the bench trial, Webb never called him as a witness to establish why the lease was terminated or if Webb‘s complaint motivated C&J‘s decision to end the month-to-month rental agreement.
{¶19} The only evidence offered at the trial specific to the alleged retaliation was a letter proving that Webb made a written complaint to the Butler County Board of Health regarding the sewage in July 2007, and that C&J provided notice of termination in August 2007. While there is a temporal proximity between the complaint and termination, “such a circumstance does not create a presumption of a retaliatory motive under Ohio law.” Id. at 286. Without any other evidence regarding C&J‘s termination of the rental agreement, Webb failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that C&J retaliated against him.
Health and Safety
{¶20} Webb also challenges the trial court‘s finding that the sewage leak did not represent a violation that, according to the statute, “materially affects health and safety.”
{¶21} Based on the testimony and evidence, the trial court noted that had the sewage stayed on the property for an extended amount of time with no remedial action,
{¶22} Webb testified regarding the assistance People Working Cooperatively provided by paying for a plumber to come out and snake the pipe directly under Webb‘s home. Webb also testified that the sewage stopped seeping after the plumber snaked the pipe. According to the Health Department‘s findings, another plumber was sent to Webb‘s home on July 6, 2007 and no sewage was detected on the outside of the trailer‘s skirting. Evidence was also admitted that the Health Department came to Webb‘s home on July 27, 2007 and spread lime and sand underneath Webb‘s trailer, but did not take any other action after that visit other than closing Webb‘s complaint.
{¶23} The trial court heard testimony from Brian Williamson, supervisor of health inspectors at the Butler County Health Department, who testified regarding the reports and inspections performed by his agency. Williamson testified that the remedial actions taken after the initial seepage by the two plumbers, C&J, and the Health Department were appropriate under the circumstances.
{¶24} Based on the testimony and evidence offered at trial, the trial court properly found that the seepage was appropriately remediated and did not otherwise constitute a violation that materially affected Webb‘s health and safety.
Eviction
{¶25} Webb next challenges the trial court‘s interpretation of Section (B) of the statute and whether the provision provides a private cause of action.
{¶26}
{¶27} The trial court found that the statute was inapplicable to Webb‘s suit because C&J had not taken any action to evict Webb. We agree with the trial court‘s interpretation because Webb cannot use
{¶28} While the statute clearly provides “a defense to an action” by the owner, C&J never commenced an action to have Webb evicted from the premises. Instead, the trial court heard evidence that C&J merely terminated its rental agreement with Webb, and that the termination was not an eviction according to Ohio‘s code. Specifically, an owner cannot evict a tenant without first providing a notice of the impending action three days prior to eviction.
{¶29} C&J neither provided Webb a three-day notice, nor did it file an action in court seeking eviction. While the August 16, 2007 letter stated that the month-to-month rental agreement was terminated, C&J never complied with the statutory requirements in order to effectuate an eviction.
{¶30} The trial court also heard testimony that Webb showed intent to vacate the premises even before the sewage seepage and termination letter. Webb testified that prior to the sewage leak, he was trying to sell his home and had posted “for sale” signs on his trailer. Both Webb and his sister testified that he had entertained several offers on his home, but that the deals fell through before the sale was ever completed. However, Webb eventually sold his mobile home voluntarily and subsequently moved
{¶31} We also note that the other two options available through
{¶32} Had Webb been able to prove that C&J retaliated against him through eviction, he could have used the statute as a defense to any eviction process C&J may have initiated, or in an attempt to regain the premises or terminate the rental agreement. See Voyager Village Ltd. v. Williams (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 288, 296 (recognizing that
{¶33} Webb‘s final argument challenges the trial court‘s finding that he did not suffer any damages as a result of C&J‘s wrongful termination of the rental agreement. Webb argues that the catch-all provision in the statute gives him a cause of action because the last sentence of
{¶34} “Actual damages are defined as ‘real, substantial, and just damages, or the amount awarded to a complainant in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury.‘” Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, 111 Ohio St.3d 177, 2006-Ohio-5481, ¶18, quoting Black‘s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990) 390.
{¶35} Even if the statute applied to Webb‘s claim, he was unable to prove that he suffered any actual damages. Webb‘s sister testified that while he and his son stayed with her immediately following the seepage, she did not charge Webb anything. Although Webb testified that when staying with friends, he gave them money to cover costs, he failed to produce any receipts or invoices for the costs he allegedly incurred. Additionally, People Working Cooperatively paid for the first plumber to come and snake the line and C&J paid for the second, so that Webb did not pay any out-of-pocket plumbing expenses.
{¶36} Webb also claims that he could have sold his trailer for $6,000 before the sewage seepage, but was forced to accept $3,000 when no potential buyers would offer more. However, Webb did not produce any evidence that the $3,000 difference was due to C&J‘s actions. For example, Webb did not present evidence demonstrating that the fair market value of the mobile home was $6,000 or that any contractual offers were made for $6,000 before the sewage seepage.
{¶37} Regardless of the value, Webb retained the ultimate decision regarding
{¶38} Having found that Webb failed to prove that C&J retaliated against him for filing a complaint with the Health Department, that
{¶39} Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.