Garfield Estates, L.L.C. v. Whittington

167 N.E.3d 113

GARFIELD ESTATES, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Falicia WHITTINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 109654

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 28, 2021

Powers Friedman Linn, P.L.L., and Rachel E. Cohen, for appellee.

Falicia Whittington, pro se.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Falicia Whittington, pro se, appeals from the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Garfield Estates, L.L.C. ("Garfield Estates") on its claims arising out of Whittington's alleged breach of a lease agreement. Whittington contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Garfield Estates because genuine issues of material fact exist as to (1) "the accurate amount to be paid * * * related to [Garfield Estates’] claim" and (2) whether alleged "faulty plumbing" and the condition of the apartment following repairs from a "flood" breached an implied warranty of habitability owed to Whittington. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court as to Whittington's liability for breach of the lease agreement but find that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the amount of damages to which Garfield Estates is entitled for breach of the lease agreement. We, therefore, reverse the trial court's damages award and remand for further proceedings.

Procedural and Factual Background

{¶ 2} On January 5, 2017, Whittington entered into a written lease agreement (the "lease agreement") with ZG Properties L.L.C. ("ZG Properties") for an apartment unit in the Garfield Villa Apartments located at 5210 East 88th Street in Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 (the "property"). According to the lease agreement, Garfield Estates was the owner of the property and ZG Properties was the "owner's agent." The lease agreement indicated that the initial lease term was from December 1, 2016 to November 30, 2017. The lease automatically renewed for an additional one-year term unless either party gave 60 days prior written notice to the other of its intent to terminate the lease at the expiration of the then-existing term. According to the lease agreement, the monthly rent was $460 plus a $10 trash fee. Whittington also agreed to pay a utility cost recovery fee of $10, subject to adjustment based on actual utility costs, at the expiration of the lease agreement and the lease agreement authorized the landlord to charge a $75 late fee for any rental payment made late, subject to a three-day or five-day grace period depending on the method of payment.

{¶ 3} On August 30, 2019, Garfield Estates filed a complaint against Whittington, asserting claims for breach of the lease agreement and money due on account. Garfield Estates alleged that Whittington had vacated the property in September 2018, that at the time she vacated the property she was "in breach of the lease agreement and the Ohio Revised Code" and that, as a result of "said breach," Whittington owed Garfield Estates $1,877.93 for failure to pay monthly rent and "other contractual charges" set forth in the lease agreement. Copies of the lease agreement and a statement of account, dated April 12, 2019, were attached to the complaint. The statement of account listed the monthly rent as being $665 and indicated that the lease term was from January 17, 2018 to December 31, 2018. The statement of account also listed a "[m]ove [i]n" date of January 17, 2018, a "[n]otice" date of September 1, 2018 and a "[m]ove [o]ut" date of September 10, 2018.

{¶ 4} On November 19, 2019, Whittington filed an answer and "counter claims." She admitted that she was a former tenant of the property and had a written lease agreement but otherwise denied the allegations of the complaint. With respect to her "counter claims," Whittington alleged that "faulty plumbing" had resulted in two "floods" on the property. Whittington alleged that she had been moved to another apartment on the premises following the first "flood" and that repairs were not timely made following the second "flood." She asserted that the "flood" and incomplete repairs "caused unsuitable accommodations" and "provoked [sic] the diminution-in-value rule in favor of a ‘reduction-in-use’ measure of damages." Whittington attached copies of what purport to be photos of the apartment following the flood and "[l]etters * * * submitted to [the] property manager [c]oncerning the unreasonable living conditions and intent to vacate" to her answer and counterclaims.¹ Whittington made no demand for affirmative relief on her "counter claims" but requested that Garfield Estates’ complaint be dismissed with prejudice at its cost. Garfield Estates filed a reply, denying the allegations of Whittington's "counter claims."

{¶ 5} On November 26, 2019, Garfield Estates served interrogatories, a request for the production of documents and a request for admissions upon Whittington. Attached to the request for admissions were copies of the lease agreement and statement of account. The request for admissions included requests to admit the following:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Exhibit "1," a copy of which was served with these Requests, is an itemization of rents, charges, and damages alleged to be owed by you to Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Statement of Account").

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Exhibit "2," a copy of which was served with these Requests, is a true and accurate copy of the written rental agreement between you and Plaintiff (hereinafter the "Rental Agreement").

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: The prices charged for the items as shown in the Statement of Account were the agreed prices to be charged and paid.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: The computations by which the balance claimed by Plaintiff was computed are accurate.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: The balance herein sued for is due and owing by you to Plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Plaintiff fulfilled its obligations to you as agreed to in the Rental Agreement.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Your actions with respect to the premises which are the subject of this action violate the Rental Agreement and § 5321.05 of the Ohio Revised Code.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Except as may be shown in the Complaint or the Statement of Account, you are not entitled to any credits, offsets or deductions.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: There are no facts upon which you rely as evidence of or a basis for a defense against any of Plaintiff's claims.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: There are no facts upon which you rely as evidence of or a basis for any claim against Plaintiff.

The request specified a response time of 28 days after service. Whittingham did not object to or respond to Garfield Estates’ discovery requests and did not request an extension of time within which to respond to the requests.

{¶ 6} On January 16, 2020, Garfield Estates filed a motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment instanter on its claims against Whittington. The following day, the trial court granted Garfield Estates’ motion for leave. Garfield Estates’ motion for summary judgment was based entirely on Whittington's failure to respond to its request for admissions. Based on the unanswered request for admissions, Garfield Estates argued that each request for admission was deemed admitted, that there were no material facts in dispute and that it was entitled to judgment against Whittington in the amount of $1,877.93 plus postjudgment interest and costs. In support of its motion, Garfield Estates submitted an affidavit from its attorney,² attaching copies of the unanswered discovery requests.³

{¶ 7} On January 30, 2020, Whittington filed an "opposition motion to [Garfield Estates’] motion for leave to file summary judgment instanter" (the "opposition"). She asserted that (1) issues of material fact were "unresolved where uninhabited laws raised just cause to vacate of subject matter premises [sic]," (2) Garfield Estates had failed to "refute [her] counter claims," (3) she had made "no admissions * * * as to allegations made in Plaintiff's complaint," (4) Garfield Estates had not shown good cause for leave to file a motion for summary judgment and (5) granting Garfield Estates leave to file a motion for summary judgment "would cause prejudice to [her] right to [a] fair trial." Whittington did not submit any evidence in support of her opposition and did not otherwise point to any evidence of specific facts in the record that she contended established a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Rather, she simply recited the summary judgment standard and asserted that (1) Garfield Estates had failed to set forth specific facts demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment and refuting her "counter claims" and (2) "the face of both the complaint and the counter claims demonstrates that genuine issues of material facts exists."

{¶ 8} On March 10, 2020, the trial court granted Garfield Estates’ motion for summary judgment, finding that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to its claims against Whittington. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Garfield Estates and against Whittington in the amount of $1,877.93, plus interest at 5 percent from the date of judgment and costs.

{¶ 9} Whittington appealed, raising the following two assignments of error for review:

First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred and abused its discretion by determining that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff's, Garfield Estates L.L.C.[’s], claims against Defendant, Falicia Whittington.

Second Assignment of Error: The trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to consider Appellant, Falicia Whittington[’s] related counter-claim and evidence as genuine issue of material fact.

{¶ 10} Whittington's assignments of error are interrelated. We, therefore, address them together.

Law and Analysis

Jurisdiction

{¶ 11} Before we can review the merits, we will first consider...