1 See Comment, The Ohio Landlord and Tenant Reform Act of 1974, 25 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 876 (1975).Google Scholar

2 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.02; Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act § 5.101 [hereinafter cited as URLTA].Google Scholar

3 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.14; URLTA § 1.303.Google Scholar

4 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.15; URLTA §§ 4.104, .107.Google Scholar

5 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.16; URLTA § 2.101.Google Scholar

6 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.04; URLTA § 2.104.Google Scholar

7 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.05; URLTA § 3.101.Google Scholar

8 Ohio Rev. Code §§ 5321.07, .09; URLTA §§ 4.101, .201Google Scholar

9 Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1923.01, 5321.09; URLTA § 4.201.Google Scholar

10 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.07.Google Scholar

11 Id.§§ 1901.17, .18.Google Scholar

12 Id.§ 5321.02.Google Scholar

13 Id.§ 5321.04.Google Scholar

14 Id.§ 5321.15.Google Scholar

15 Id.§ 5321.16.Google Scholar

16 Id.§ 5321.05.Google Scholar

17 Id.§ 5321.09.Google Scholar

18 Id.§ 1923.04.Google Scholar

19 Id.§ 1923.06.Google Scholar

20 Id.§ 5321.07(A) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

21 Id.§ 5321.07(B). Rent withholding under URLTA differs from that under the Ohio act in that the tenant may deposit rent with the court only after a hearing and an order issued allowing the deposit (§ 4.105). In addition, the tenant may, after notice, (1) make the repairs or supply the service himself and deduct the cost thereof from the rent (§§ 4.103, .104) and (2) be excused from rent while substitute housing is procured and recover from the landlord the cost of such rent (§ 4.104).Google Scholar

22 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.08.Google Scholar

23 Springsteel v. Levet, No. 971670 (C.P. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Apr. 11, 1977). In the brief supporting the petition for relief, reliance is placed on Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 US. 67 (1972) (holding invalid a Florida statute allowing the recovery of personal property, through a prejudgment writ of replevin issued by a court clerk, without notice to the party in possession of the property or providing for an opportunity for a judicial hearing on the matter), and North Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. DiChem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (1975) (declaring a Georgia statute to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because it permitted the issuance of a writ of garnishment by a court clerk, based on conclusory allegations, without also providing for an early hearing on the claim). Also cited in support of this contention is the case of Rallie Co. v. Pastor, No. M76CVG46373 (Franklin County, Ohio, Mun. Ct. (Columbus), Apr. 11, 1977) (holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional on the basis stated above). However, the municipal court rulings of one city or county are not binding on the courts of other cities and counties. The Springsteel case also alleges that a provision making the procedure applicable only to landlords with four or more units is a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (cited is Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)).Google Scholar

24 Ohio Rev. Code § 3733.Google Scholar

25 City of Cleveland, Department of Community Development, Community Development Block Grant Application: Housing Assistance Plan, 1978-1979.Google Scholar

26 Information about the activities of the Housing Division was gained from interviews with the director of the division. We were given to understand that the offending party (normally the owner or landlord but sometimes a tenant) is given a “reasonable” time to rectify the condition cited. The time allowed to repair varies with the need: e.g., from 24 hours for lack of heat to 6 months for peeling paint. A little over half of those cited make the repairs within the deadline set by the inspector. Failure to comply normally detected on reinspection or renewal of a complaint results in the issuance of a summons, requiring the owner to come into the division office to discuss the matter and for an explanation that the violation will be referred to the municipal law department for possible prosecution in the Cleveland Municipal Court. This latter procedure accounts for another 43 percent compliance. In 1978, about 1,100 complaints were filed in court.Google Scholar

27 Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 2, 1978, at 62.Google Scholar

28 Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.07(C).Google Scholar

29 Once an eviction action is filed, the tenant has a right, under federal regulation, to a grievance procedure. Under it, the manager of the Housing Authority receives a notice of the grievance, under which the tenant is entitled to have his or her case heard before an administrative tribunal consisting of two representatives of management (the Housing Authority), two representatives of the tenant, and one representative representing neither group currently a delegate from the local League of Women Voters. The eviction action in the municipal court is held in abeyance until this grievance procedure is concluded.Google Scholar

30 Section 1923.061 provides specifically that a tenant in defending an action for nonpayment of rent may use any defense under chapter 1923 or counterclaim for any amount to which he or she is entitled under the rental agreement or chapter 5321.Google Scholar

31 When it is clear that the tenant is poor, as most are, the referee will state that the “red card” will be issued when finding for the landlord. This means that a praecipe (ordering the writ of possession to be prepared by the court clerk), on a form red in color, will be issued. A copy is given to the tenant so that he or she can, if eligible, take it to the local welfare department to apply for financial assistance. Documentation of the order to vacate is necessary to qualify for this form of public aid.Google Scholar

32 381 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978).Google Scholar

33 Id. at 1141.Google Scholar

34 Emily Jane Goodman, Housing Court: The New York Tenant Experience, 17 Urb. L. Ann. 57, 61 (1979).Google Scholar

35 Fusco, Anthony J., Jr., Nancy B. Collins, & Julian R. Birnbaum, Chicago's Evicition Court: The Tenants' Court of No Resort, 17 Urb. L. Ann. 93, 109-110 (1979).Google Scholar

36 Reed, Robert, Detroit Code Enforcement and the Housing Court Debate, 17 Urb. L. Ann. 215, 219 (1979); see also, Marilyn Mosier & Richard Soble, Modern Legislation, Metropolitan Court, Miniscule Results: A Study of Detroit's Landlord-Tenant Court, 7 J.L. Ref. 9 (1973); Rose & Scott, “Street Talk” Summonses in Detroit's Landlord-Tenant Court: A Small Step Forward for Urban Tenants, 52 J. Urb. L. 967 (1975).Google Scholar

37 Allan David Heskin, The Warranty of Habitability Debate: A California Case Study, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 37, 59 (1978).Google Scholar

38 One commentator has concluded that there is no precise judicial standard for determining whether the implied warranty of habitability is substantial enough to justify rent withholding. Considered is the “seriousness” of the defect and length of time it has existed. See Comment, Rent Withholding Won't Work: The Need for a Realistic Rehabilitation Policy, 7 Loy. L.A.L.L. Rev. 66, 73, n.42 (1974).Google Scholar

39 We were unable to verify the extent of housing improvements in Cleveland since enactment of the act in 1974. Other persons interviewed namely those favoring the tenant's position disputed the referees' assertions about the amelioration of living conditions in Cleveland because in their view substandard living continues to be substantial as shown by figures produced by the Cleveland Department of Community Development. See note 25 supra and text at same.Google Scholar

40 Hirsch, Werner Z., Joel G. Hirsch, & Stephen Margolis, Regression Analysis of the Effects of Habitability Laws upon Rent: An Empirical Observation on the Ackerman-Komesar Debate, 63 Calif. L. Rev. 1098 (1975); Charles J. Meyers, The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 879 (1975); Comment, supra note 38.Google Scholar

41 “At the point where economic self-interest ceases to be a sufficiently potent force for the promotion of the general welfare, … the Legislature may intervene and require that buildings intended for use as tenement houses … shall conform to minimum standards which may reasonably be regarded as essential for safe, decent, and sanitary dwelling places.” Adamec v. Post, 7 N.E.2d 120, 122 (N.Y. 1937); Danker v. City of New York, 194 N.Y.S.2d 975 (A.D. 1959); Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl, 328 U.S. 80 (1946); Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921); Wheat v. Ramsey, 224 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1969); Givner v. Commissioner of Health, 113 A.2d 899 (Md. 1955); see 7 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations (3d ed. rev. Chicago: Callaghan, 1968 & 1977 Supp.).Google Scholar

42 Comment, The Landlord's Economic Inability to Meet Housing Code Requirements: The “Hot Bath” Ordinance, an Illustration, 23 St. Louis U.L.J. 163, 174 (1979).Google Scholar

43 174 N.E.2d 331 (N.Y. 1961).Google Scholar

44 See Judah Gribetz & Frank P. Grad, Housing Code Enforcement: Sanctions and Remedies, 66 Colum. L. Rev. 1254, 1272 (1966).Google Scholar

45 Apple v. City & County of Denver, 390 P.2d 91 (Col. 1964).Google Scholar

46 Gates Co. v. Housing Appeals Bd., 225 N.E.2d 222, 225 (1967). Here the court noted that the cost of compliance would exceed 50 percent of the fair market value of the property without improvements. See also Dente v. City of Mt. Vernon, 272 N.Y.S.2d 65 (A.D. 1966); Early Estates, Inc. v. Housing Bd. of Review, 174 A.2d 117 (R.I. 1961); Safer v. City of Jacksonville, 237 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970).Google Scholar

47 City of St. Louis v. Brune, 515 S.W.2d 417, 482 (1974).Google Scholar

48 Id. at 476. See generally Comment, supra note 42.Google Scholar

49 One or more of the following items are checked and left with the landlord if, during an inspection, a defect is discovered:Google Scholar

50 The tenants' organization check list read as follows:Google Scholar

51 During interviews with the referees we asked why they made few if any referrals to the City Housing Division. Uniformly the answers expressed the perception that there aren't enough inspectors and that those in service are hard put to keep up with their own routine license inspections, without giving attention to court referrals.Google Scholar

52 Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1901.011, .025, as amended.Google Scholar

53 See Scott, Randall W., Housing Courts and Housing Justice: An Overview, 17 Urb. L. Ann. 3 (1979). There it is argued:Google Scholar

Id. 9.Google Scholar

54 The Canadian Rentalsman, used in Manitoba and British Columbia, is reportedly a very popular and productive approach to landlord-tenant problems. Trained Rentalsmen officers and investigators receive complaints and serve as hearing officers; their decisions are guiding, but appeal to the courts may be taken. This system encourages complaints that normally would not be made through the court system. The New York City Housing Court, whose jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes must be acquired by the parties agreement, employs hearing officers who, primarily in eviction cases, uncover tenant defenses based on housing code violations. See Mauro Cappelletti & Bryant Garth, Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective, 27 Buffalo L. Rev. 181, 271-73 (1978). See also Comment, Arbitration of Landlord-Tenant Disputes, 27 Am. U.L. Rev. 407 (1978).Google Scholar