|
|
2007-1551. Klein v. Moutz, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2329.
Summit App. No. 23473, 2007-Ohio-3242. Certified question answered and judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-2329.pdf
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."
(May 20, 2008) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that both trial and appellate courts have authority to determine and award attorney fees incurred at the appellate level under R.C. 5321.16(C), a state law that authorizes tenants to recover from a landlord for legal fees they incur in pursuing recovery of a wrongfully withheld security deposit. The Court’s 7-0 decision, authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, reversed a ruling by the 9th District Court of Appeals.
In January 2006, tenants Evelyn and Harry Klein of Akron filed suit against their former landlord, Alvin Moutz, in Akron Municipal Court alleging that Moutz had wrongfully refused to refund their security deposit. In their complaint, the Kleins asked the court to assess statutory damages against Moutz and also sought reimbursement of their court costs and reasonable attorney fees, as provided in R.C. 5321.16. The trial court awarded statutory damages but denied their request for attorney fees. The Kleins appealed. The 9th District Court of Appeals reversed the judgment denying attorney fees and remanded the case to the municipal court with a directive to determine and award reasonable attorney fees.
On remand, the municipal court awarded the Kleins the attorney fees they had incurred at the trial level, but denied their request for additional legal fees they had incurred in pursuing their appeal. The Kleins appealed that ruling. The 9th District affirmed the municipal court’s decision, citing the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in Christe v. GMS Mgt. Co. Inc. (2000) that attorney fee awards made under R.C. 5321.16 (C) are assessed as “costs,” and inferring from that ruling that a trial court lacks authority to make an award of costs that were incurred in the appellate process. The 9th District subsequently certified that its decision denying the Kleins’ appeal was in conflict with an earlier ruling on the same issue by the 6th District Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case to resolve the conflict between appellate districts.
Writing for the Court in today’s decision, Justice Stratton noted that the Christe decision focused on the narrow question of whether attorney fees incurred in an R.C. 5321.16 appeal are “damages” or “costs,” and did not address the procedural consequences of the Court’s holding that they are costs. Justice Stratton cited her concurring opinion in Christe suggesting that a tenant should be able to petition either the trial court or the court of appeals for attorney fees under the statute, and wrote that after analyzing the issue in the context of the current case, “(w)e now adopt this position.”
“R.C. 5321.16 is a remedial statute intended to compensate the tenant for a wrongfully withheld deposit at no expense to the tenant,” wrote Justice Stratton. “The trial court is in a better position to determine a fee award, for it may hold a hearing, take testimony, create a record, and otherwise evaluate the numerous factors associated with calculating an attorney-fee award. There is no limiting language in the statute that precludes a trial court from considering fees incurred at the appellate level. Therefore, we hold that a trial court has the authority under R.C. 5321.16(C) to tax as costs the attorney fees incurred at the appellate level.”
With regard to the authority of courts of appeals, Justice Stratton wrote: “We also agree with the Christe concurrence that a tenant should be able to petition a court of appeals for R.C. 5321.16(C) attorney fees that have been incurred on appeal. ... There is nothing in R.C. 5321.16(C) that limits assessment of costs, including reasonable attorney fees, to a trial court. Appellate courts have authority to determine costs, including reasonable attorney fees, under other circumstances. See App.R. 23; R.C. 2323.51. Therefore, we hold that a court of appeals also has the authority to resolve the issue of appellate attorney fees in order to bring the case to conclusion.”
Justice Stratton’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell and Robert R. Cupp. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.Contacts
Neil P. Agarwal, 330.554.7700, for
Evelyn and Harry Klein.
Alvin Moutz, pro se (no contact information was provided).