A group of local landlords and tenants have dealt another blow to Kent’s residential rental unit inspection and licensing code.
Following a 2021 lawsuit from landlords against the city that settled favorably for the plaintiffs, a judge last month ruled in favor of another group of landlords and their tenants challenging Kent’s inspection program.
On March 29, Court of Common Pleas Judge Becky Doherty blocked the city from collecting fines from the plaintiffs in the case: Constellation Ohio; Steve Mileski; and J. Mark Seaholts, Dee Anna Seaholts and Charles D. Seaholts.
While the city’s department heads have declined to comment, citing pending litigation over attorneys fees, some city council members are not happy about the outcome. They say the city’s inspection and licensing laws protect the rights of Kent renters.
“Obviously Judge Doherty does not live in a neighborhood with student rentals,” Ward 5 Council Member Heidi Shaffer Bish said. She said she was “incensed” that the judge would issue a ruling “that privileges business properties over everyone else’s property rights, including homeowners.”
But the plaintiffs, including the tenants who signed on with their landlords, say the inspections were not welcome and violated their constitutional rights.
With the court preventing the city’s efforts to enforce its laws, it’s unclear what will become of the city’s housing code.
Stepped up enforcement
In 2019, according to a landlord involved in the first lawsuit, Kent seemed to increase enforcement of a 2016 code that gave city officials the right to fine landlords who did not grant inspectors access to their properties. Under the code, the inspections were necessary to obtain or renew the owners’ housing license.
Landlords who declined to schedule inspections of their properties could be subject to fines, followed by liens and even having their property condemned.
Though it appears most landlords complied with the tightened provisions, Kent landlord Bernie Noble and two other landlords sued the city in 2021, alleging the required inspections and fines for not agreeing to them violated an array of constitutional rights. That lawsuit was settled out of court in September 2022, largely in the plaintiffs’ favor.
As part of the deal, Kent waived inspections and fees for Noble’s and another landlord’s properties because they were occupied by long-term tenants, and refunded his company $12,915 in fines.
The second lawsuit
Suing the city and county on Aug. 8, 2022, in Portage County Common Pleas Court were Constellation Ohio and their tenants; Mileski and his tenants; and the Seaholts and one of their tenants.
Just as in the previous lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that Kent’s statutes violate the fourth, fifth, eighth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions in Ohio’s Constitution.
The plaintiffs also objected to Kent law that states the city will not issue or renew a housing license until the inspection is complete and the unit is found to be in compliance with Kent’s housing code. If the plaintiffs would not allow inspections, their units could be condemned.
There were no complaints about the conditions at any of the properties, and there was no reason to suspect the properties were in violation, the plaintiffs said. Therefore, the lawsuit said, Kent would need an administrative search warrant or the tenants’ voluntary consent to conduct the inspections, the lawsuit states.
Those tenants “have not, and do not, want Kent’s code enforcement officers inspecting their units without a valid search warrant,” the lawsuit stated.
The landlords rejected both the fines and denial of housing licenses as Kent’s attempt to force compliance with the city’s licensing code and its inspection provision.
The plaintiffs had petitioned the court for summary judgment on Jan. 23. On Feb. 24, the court granted the City of Kent’s request for a 28-day extension to respond to that filling. When Kent had not filed the necessary paperwork by March 24, Doherty granted the plaintiffs’ request and issued the summary judgment in their favor on March 29. (Summary judgments are judgments entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.)
Possible further legal action
Kent Community Development Director Bridget Susel declined to comment on what two consecutive losses mean for the city’s licensing and inspection code, saying the matter is still pending.
“There are rules of procedure that allow for certain motions to be filed [in Common Pleas Court] after a judgment has been granted,” Kent Law Director Hope Jones said.
Portage County Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci, though, said summary judgments are final and that Kent’s only option at this point is to appeal to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.
Such appeals must be filed within 30 days of the lower court ruling.
Ravenna attorney Chad Murdock, who is representing the plaintiffs, withheld comment, saying the matter is still pending: Next up is a hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs that City of Kent will have to pay the plaintiffs.
City council members stand by their law
Council Member Jack Amrhein, who said council has not discussed the lawsuits, said the code was initially created to keep landlords from “packing houses,” to prevent owner-occupied neighborhoods from rental creep, and to ensure that renters have a safe place to live.
If the code were to be rewritten to eliminate inspections, renters’ only recourse would be to lodge their own complaints against landlords, Amrhein said.
Ward 5 Council Member Heidi Shaffer Bish continued Amrhein’s line of thought.
“In the past we could not enter a property, and it was also incumbent upon 20-year-olds, who know very little about the world, to make the complaints themselves,” she said. “They don’t know the code. They don’t understand code. So this has improved safety for the tenants, and they’re my constituents as well.”
Though she knew Kent’s code was being challenged, Shaffer Bish said, “I felt reasonably certain the challenges would not lead to a ruling that would overturn our legislation. If this is the case, this is devastating to our community if the ruling stands.”
Shaffer Bish said city leaders spent years vetting the legislation, which she said was based on similar codes in other college towns and had the support of several Kent landlords.
Kent isn’t alone
Shaffer Bish said she doesn’t believe Kent’s code is unconstitutional and suggested that if the provisions fall, communities across Ohio and across the country will have to revise their rulebooks as well.
Athens, one of the college towns upon which Shaffer Bish said Kent’s code is based, requires landlords to obtain annual rental permits, which are contingent upon the property passing inspection. Landlords and tenants can refuse inspectors entry to the premises without consequence, but the city gives itself the right to appeal in court for an administrative search warrant.
According to Athens city code, the age of the property, condition of similar properties in the area, and passage of time since the last inspection are all grounds for appeal.
“I’m very proud of [Kent’s] legislation. This is our seminal piece of legislation from the time I was elected. This legislation is my proudest achievement,” she said. “Quite frankly, Kent, with 60% rentals, was behind the curve, at least in comparison to other college towns.”
Issuing rental licenses without inspections would reduce Kent’s Community Development Department to rubber stamp approval, she said.
Wendy DiAlesandro is a former Record Publishing Co. reporter and contributing writer for The Portager.