May 2007 |
|
In This Issue
Tenants - Evictions & Accommodations for the Disabled
Criminal ActivityThe Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority lease requires that tenants ensure that no household members or guests engage in any drug-related activity. In June 2006, police came to a tenant’s unit and arrested one of her guests for possession of crack cocaine. Even though the tenant testified that she was unaware that the guest had the cocaine, and she cooperated with his arrest, the Authority initiated eviction proceedings for violation of the lease. The Cleveland Municipal Court refused to order the tenant’s eviction. Cuyahoga Met. Housing Authority v. Harris, 2006-Ohio-6918 (Muni. Ct. 2006). The court agreed that the guest engaged in drug-related activity, which was a violation of the lease. The court also acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a PHA has the discretion to pursue an eviction action against a tenant for drug-related activity, even if the tenant was innocent. See, Dept. of HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002). However, the Ohio court held that the federal law did not pre-empt or limit the state court’s equity powers. Considering all of the circumstances, and the tenant’s innocence and lack of knowledge of the drug activity, the court found that it would be inequitable to evict the tenant. To rule otherwise, said the court, would mean that public housing tenants could have no guests, or they would have to conduct a thorough search of every guest every time they entered PHA property. Accommodating the DisabledA husband and wife suffered from a number of disabilities that restricted their ability to walk up stairs. They asked the Gainesville Housing Authority for a first-floor unit as an accommodation to their disabilities. There were none available, so they leased a second-floor unit and requested transfer when a ground floor unit became available. Despite the fact that more than twenty first-floor units became available, the Authority never offered one to the couple. That prompted them to complain to HUD. HUD issued a severe corrective action order to the Authority, ordering it to comply with the Fair Housing and Disability Laws. The order limits the Authority’s access to all capital program funds that are not designed for emergencies or to correct noncompliance. The order also requires HUD approval for all capital program fund expenditures by the Authority. Ohio Public Records LawPHAs are frequently the target of requests for records under Ohio public records law. (Ohio Revised Code Section 149.351). The Ohio Supreme Court issued two rulings on public records that are noteworthy: First, in State ex rel. Office v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St. 3d 2007 (2006), the Court reiterated that custodians of public records must redact Social Security numbers from otherwise public records before the records are disclosed. This is true even if the requesting party seeks the social security information. The Court also clarified what constitutes a “record.” In Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d 163 (2006), two employees requested disclosure of individual time sheets. It turned out that the daily records had been destroyed. Because the Public Records law provides a penalty of $1,000 for the destruction of a public record, the question became – what is the “public record” – is it each individual time sheet or, instead, the entire file and tally containing the work time information? The City argued that the “public record” was the entire file, and that each page of the file was not a separate public record. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that each individual time sheet had an independent meaning and function in documenting the activities of the public office; thus, a “public record” may be a single document within a larger file, as well as a compilation of documents. The result in this case was that, although the plaintiffs recovered only $908.33 in lost wages, they were awarded $860,000.00 for statutory penalties (i.e., $1,000 per page) for destruction of the public records.Competitive BiddingAlthough not involving a PHA, the Ohio Supreme Court recently issued an interesting decision on the subject of competitive bidding. Cementech, Inc. v. City of Fairlawn, 109 Ohio St. 3d 475 (2006). “While allowing lost-profit damages in municipal-contract cases would protect bidders from corrupt practices, it also would harm the taxpayers by forcing them to bear the extra cost of lost profits to rejected bidders. Thus, the purposes of competitive bidding clearly militate against allowing lost-profit damages to rejected bidders.” CreditsKegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter's Housing Newsletter is prepared by Lawrence F. Feheley. To subscribe to any Kegler Brown publication, please use our Subscribe Form. To unsubscribe from any Kegler Brown publication, please use our Opt-Out Form. This publication, as well as an archive of previous publications, is also available from our Publications Archive. The Housing Newsletter is designed to provide general information about the subjects discussed. It is not meant to be all-inclusive or comprehensive. Kegler Brown is not rendering any legal or professional advice by way of this publication. © 1998-2008, Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A. |
|
|
|
Member firms of the State Capital Group practice independently and not in a relationship for the joint practice of law. |
© 2008, Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., LPA.