|
|
99-1545. Dennis v. Morgan.
Fulton App. No. F-98-025. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Douglas, Lazarus, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the syllabus and judgment .
Cynthia Cecil Lazarus, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
(Aug. 9, 2000) Should a tenant be able to escape rental obligations by purposely violating a lease and waiting for the landlord to present a three-day notice to vacate?
Not according to the Supreme Court, which today ordered the Fulton County Common Pleas Court to take a second look at a request for lost rent filed by a Wauseon couple against a tenant they evicted in 1996.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer wrote the court's unanimous opinion.
The ruling means Angela Morgan, evicted from her Delta, Ohio apartment in 1996 with seven months left on her lease, is obligated to landlords Tim and Suzanne Dennis for "rent for the remainder of the term or until a new tenant [was] secured in the exercise of reasonable diligence." The Dennises served Morgan with eviction papers charging she repeatedly disturbed other tenants with loud parties that often prompted police visits.
The Supreme Court said unruly renters, or tenants who otherwise breach rental contracts, cannot escape their financial obligations to landlords through eviction. "Otherwise, whenever a lease became unpalatable, a lessee could commit some bad act and thereupon be relieved of the burden of her bargain," Pfeifer said.
Conversely, the court said, "landlords have a duty, as all parties to contracts do, to mitigate their damages caused by a breach," speculating that the Dennises may have neglected that duty.
"The law may not be with them [back before the common pleas court] if they cannot show that they reasonably attempted to relet the property for seven months. A seven-month vacancy strains the limits of reasonableness," Pfeifer said.
The Supreme Court's decision resolves conflicting opinions by the 6th and 10th appellate districts.
Contacts
L. Scott Helkowski, 491.337.5065 for appellants Dennis et al.
Sheldon C. Meister, 419.822.4197, for appellee Morgan.