| Tenant Protected Actions |
|
| Landlord Retaliatory Actions |
|
| Penalties for Retaliation |
|
When Is It Illegal for Landlords to Retaliate in Ohio?
It’s illegal for Ohio landlords to retaliate with raised rent, reduced services, or threatened eviction against tenants who have taken one of the following protected actions:
- Complaining to the government about code violations.
- Complaining to the landlord about the landlord’s legal obligations.
- Participating in a tenant organization.
Unlike most states, in Ohio, taking a protected action isn’t enough to prove retaliation. The tenant must provide reasonable evidence to show that the landlord’s motivation was retaliatory. However, again unlike most states, in Ohio the tenant can point to a collective pattern of behavior to prove retaliation.
The law allows an exception when the landlord can prove a non-retaliatory, good-faith reason for the alleged retaliatory action. For example, a landlord who raises rent proportionately in response to a large increase in property tax is not retaliating, even if a tenant has recently complained about maintenance.
What Can Tenants Do in Response in Ohio?
Ohio tenants can respond to landlord retaliation by suing for quiet enjoyment of the property. The tenant might also end the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant can recover any actual monetary damages suffered. If the tenant proves actual damages, the tenant can also recover reasonable attorney fees.
Sources
- 1 Oh. Rev. Code § 5321.02(A) (2022)
-
“Subject to section 5321.03 of the Revised Code [eviction process], a landlord may not retaliate against a tenant by increasing the tenant’s rent, decreasing services that are due to the tenant, or bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession of the tenant’s premises because: (1) The tenant has complained to an appropriate governmental agency of a violation of a building, housing, health, or safety code that is applicable to the premises, and the violation materially affects health and safety; (2) The tenant has complained to the landlord of any violation of section 5321.04 of the Revised Code [landlord obligations]; (3) The tenant joined with other tenants for the purpose of negotiating or dealing collectively with the landlord on any of the terms and conditions of a rental agreement.”
Source Link - 2 Howard v. Simon, 18 Ohio App. 3d 14, 18 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
-
“The statute provides that the landlord ‘may not retaliate’ because of a protected complaint. The legislature required by this construction that the finder of fact [i.e., the court] make an independent determination of the reasons behind the landlord’s action. The finder of fact must determine that the landlord is retaliating. If this were otherwise, the statute could have been written using the word “action” in place of the word ‘retaliate.’”
Source Link - 3 Weishaar v. Strimbu, 76 Ohio App. 3d 276, 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
-
“[A] temporal proximity of the parties’ actions… does not create a presumption of a retaliatory motive under Ohio law. …a landlord may not retaliate because of a complaint made to a government agency, [but] the finder of fact must independently determine the reasons behind a landlord’s action. A tenant must, therefore, show by a preponderance of the evidence, that the relationship between the complaint and action resulted from a retaliatory motive.”
Source Link - 4 Cont'l Enters., Ltd. v. Franklin, No. 102899, 14 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
-
“The Franklins’ retaliation claim states that the activities complained of ‘collectively’ constitute a violation of R.C. 5321.02. The allegations include the failure to exercise reasonable care in performing the washer dryer installation, unreasonable demands for access to the unit without notice for indefinite periods and at inconvenient times, failure to correct unsafe conditions, deprivation of use of a portion of the Unit, and frivolously filing the lawsuit in December 2013. Further to the R.C. 5321.02 elements of a change in rent or services, the Franklins were deprived of the full use of their guest room, and the removal of a closet, from late October 2013 forward and, as the trial court stated, the installation was incomplete by the end of December 2013. In implementing its washer/dryer installation project in October 2013 Continental served notice on the Franklins of the various times that it wanted access to the unit, sometimes for consecutive days at a time between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.”
Source Link - 5 Oh. Rev. Code § 5321.02(B) (2022)
-
“If a landlord acts in violation of division (A) of this section the tenant may: (1) Use the retaliatory action of the landlord as a defense to an action by the landlord to recover possession of the premises; (2) Recover possession of the premises; or (3) Terminate the rental agreement. In addition, the tenant may recover from the landlord any actual damages together with reasonable attorneys’ fees. (C) Nothing in division (A) of this section shall prohibit a landlord from increasing the rent to reflect the cost of improvements installed by the landlord in or about the premises or to reflect an increase in other costs of operation of the premises.”
Source Link - 6 Jemo Associates, Inc. v. Garman, 70 Ohio St. 2d 267, 272 (Ohio 1982)
-
“The language of R.C. 5321.02(B) [recovering damages together with attorney’s fees for landlord retaliation] expressly conditions the award of attorney’s fees on a finding that the tenant suffered actual damages.”
Source Link
