OTHER COURT DECISIONS

City of Cleveland v. Blue Spruce Entities, LLC
2011-Ohio-1932, April 21, 2011

In an appeal of the sentence imposed by the Housing Division of the Cleveland Municipal Court, The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the maximum fines of $5,000 per count imposed in two convictions for violations of the Cleveland City Ordinances 367.12(c). The Court of Appeals held that enhanced organizational penalties were permitted under both R.C. 2901.23 and C.C.O. 601.10. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the maximum sentences in both cases, noting that trial courts possess broad discretion in misdemeanor sentencing, that the sentences imposed were within the statutory range, and that the trial court properly considered the sentencing factors outlined in R.C. 2929.21 and .22.

Hausman v. Dayton
1995-Ohio-277, September 13, 1995

The Hausman case revolved around commercial property declared a public nuisance by the City of Dayton. After the owners’ defaulted on the mortgage, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings, but the property was not sold. The City ordered the mortgagee bank (along with other parties holding title) to abate the nuisance under an ordinance that defined liable “owners” to include “a mortgagee.” The Ohio Supreme Court held that the bank, as a mortgagee not in possession could not constitutionally be held responsible for the nuisance conditions. So long as a mortgagor retains the right to redemption, the Court held, title remains in the mortgagor. The mortgagee—the bank—cannot be held liable as an owner until the right to redemption is extinguished or the mortgagee otherwise has possession or control over the property at issue.

Cleveland Bar Association v. Picklo
2002-Ohio-3995, August 21, 2002

The Cleveland Bar Association filed this case against Picklo, a non-attorney who regularly filed and appeared in court on behalf of property owners in forcible entry and detainer (eviction) actions. The Court held that the statutory definition of a landlord could not override the Court's ability to define and govern the practice of law and upheld the decision of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, barring Picklo from filing and appearing on behalf of property owners, as such constituted the unauthorized practice of law.



		Search the Cleveland Housing Court Web Site


			OTHER COURT DECISIONS City of Cleveland v. Blue Spruce Entities, LLC 2011-Ohio-1932, April 21, 2011 In an appeal of the sentence imposed by the Housing Division of the Cleveland Municipal Court, The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the maximum fines of $5,000 per count imposed in two convictions for violations of the Cleveland City Ordinances 367.12(c). The Court of Appeals held that enhanced organizational penalties were permitted under both R.C. 2901.23 and C.C.O. 601.10. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the maximum sentences in both cases, noting that trial courts possess broad discretion in misdemeanor sentencing, that the sentences imposed were within the statutory range, and that the trial court properly considered the sentencing factors outlined in R.C. 2929.21 and .22. Hausman v. Dayton 1995-Ohio-277, September 13, 1995 The Hausman case revolved around commercial property declared a public nuisance by the City of Dayton. After the owners’ defaulted on the mortgage, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings, but the property was not sold. The City ordered the mortgagee bank (along with other parties holding title) to abate the nuisance under an ordinance that defined liable “owners” to include “a mortgagee.” The Ohio Supreme Court held that the bank, as a mortgagee not in possession could not constitutionally be held responsible for the nuisance conditions. So long as a mortgagor retains the right to redemption, the Court held, title remains in the mortgagor. The mortgagee—the bank—cannot be held liable as an owner until the right to redemption is extinguished or the mortgagee otherwise has possession or control over the property at issue. Cleveland Bar Association v. Picklo 2002-Ohio-3995, August 21, 2002 The Cleveland Bar Association filed this case against Picklo, a non-attorney who regularly filed and appeared in court on behalf of property owners in forcible entry and detainer (eviction) actions. The Court held that the statutory definition of a landlord could not override the Court's ability to define and govern the practice of law and upheld the decision of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, barring Picklo from filing and appearing on behalf of property owners, as such constituted the unauthorized practice of law.