'
..
INTHE.qO.u~TOFCOMMONPLEAS
F
tlJAt8.tOUNTY,OHIO.
KAIMPROPERTIES,
~~,r\R~
11
Prl)3
L\S
CASENO.
11
CV000352
'.PlaintiffMAUREENG.K~LL,(
.vs.
LAKECO,),
JUDGMENTENTRY
CLERKOfCOrRT
CITYOFMENTOR,
etal.,)
}
.Defendants)
Thewithinmattercameonforconsiderationthis
day,
towit:May4,2012uponthefollowing:1.Defendants'MotionforSummaryJudgment,andBriefinSupportofDefendants'MotionforSummaryJudgment,bothfiledDecember2,2011;.2.OppositiontoDefendants'MotionforSummaryJudgmentandPlaintiff'sMotionforSummaryJudgment,filedJanuary24,2012;and3.Defendants'ReplyBriefinSupportofDefendants'Motionfor
SummaryJUdgmentandBriefinOppositiontoPlaintiffsMotionfor
SummaryJudgment,filedJanuary31,2012.
ThisactioninvolvesPlaintiffKaimProperties,LLC'sComplaintagainstDefendantsCityofMentor,CityofMentorCityCouncil,andJohnAlesci(inhisofficialcapacityasCodeEnforcementOfficer).PlaintiffisaskingthisCourttodeclaretwooftheCityofMentor'smunicipalordinancesunconstitutionalbothontheirfaceand'asappliedtoPlaintiffsproperties.Inaddition,PlaintiffseeksanorderenjoiningDefendantsfromenforcingthe
ordinances.Plaintiffistheownerofcertainresidentialrealpropertiesthatmaybeoccupiedby
rentaltenants.Intheearly1990s,CityofMentorCityCouncilpassedaMulti-FamilyDwellingsCodeinwhichownersoroperatorsofamulti-familyapartmentrentalproperty
.wererequiredtoapplyforandobtainacertificateofoccupancyfromDefendantCityofMentor("Mentor").Underthiscode,Mentorinspectedmulti-familydwellingsbasedon.certainpublichealth/safetystandards.OnOctober16,2007,theCityCouncilofMentor
,~
amendedtheexistingMentorMulti-FamilyDwellingsCodeandenactedaresidentialrental
inspectionprogram,generallydescribedas"PartThirteen-BuildingCode:Title
Nine-RentalHousingMaintenanceCode,CodifiedOrdinancesoftheCityofMentor,
Chapters1375through1391,andCodifiedOrdinancesoftheCityofMentor,Chapters
1375.01through1375.09."Thissectionisnowexpandedtoincludesinglefamily,duplex
and.triplexrentalhousinginadditiontoapartments.
Underthecode,everytwoyears,arentalpropertyownermustapplyforaRental
DwellingUnitCertificatefromtheEngineeringandBuildingDepartment.ThisDepartment
thenattemptstoscheduleaconsensualinspectionoftherentalproperty.InApril2010,
theRentalHousingCodewasfurtheramendedtoincludeaprovisionforMentortoobtain
anadministrativewarrantfromacourtwhentherentalpropertyownerrefusesorinterferes
withtheinspection.
PlaintiffwasnotifiedofthechangesinJuly2008.Despitenumerousnotices,
PlaintiffdidnotapplyforaRentalDwellingCertificate.Mentorthenobtainedan
administrativesearchwarrantfromMentorMunicipalCourt.plaintiffmovedtoquashthe
warrantandfiledtheinstantmatterinthisCourt.Mentorthenwithdrewitsrequestforthe
warrantinMentorMunicipalCourt.
InsupportofitsMotion,DefendantspreliminarilyarguethattheComplaintagainst
DefendantsMentorCityCouncilandJohnAlescishouldbedismissedinthatbothare
superfluousparties.Defendantsarguethatacitycouncilcannotbesuedandevenifit
could,Plaintiffhasnotpresentedanyevidencetosupportaconclusion'thattheCity
Councilactedunconstitutionallyorbeyondthescopeofitsauthority.Further,FrankKaim,
theprincipalownerofPlaintiffKaimProperties,LLC,statedinhisdepositionthat.
DefendantJohnAlescihasnotdoneanythinginappropriateoroutsideofhisauthorityand
thathebelievedDefendantJohnAlesciwasdoinghisjobandnotbeingdeceptive.
Inaddition,DefendantsarguethatPlaintiffsDeclaratoryJudgmentactionshould
bedismissedbecauseMentor'sRentalHousinqCodeisconstitutionalonitsfaceandinitsapplication.DefendantsassertthatMentorhasaI~gitimategovernmentinterestin
regulatingthehealth,safetyandwelfareofitsrentalhousinqmarket;(2)theRental
HousingCodeisnotunconstitutionallyvague;(3)theRentalHousingCodedoesnot
...........
;.:;
..
v.:-"..,.',~.....
r-:.-.....
.
',,;'
2
violatesubstantiveorproceduraldueprocess;(4)theRentalHousingCodehasadequate
dueprocessinthatnoticesmustbeservedandthereis~(righttoanappealandhearing;
(5)Mentor'sapplicationofadministrativesearchesthro~ughconsentorwarrantisnotunconstitutional;(6)thefeesassessedforrentalpropertiesarenotarbitraryorunreasonable.InresponseandinsupportofitsownMotionfO(SummaryJudgment,PlaintiffcontendsthatMentor'srentalinspectionprogramviolatesPlaintiff'srighttodueprocess
\
inthattheprogramdoesnotprovideforapre-deprivation.hearing.Inaddition,Mentor'srentalinspectionprogramamountstoatakingandisunconstitutionalonitsfaceandasappliedtoPlaintiff.Moreover,PlaintiffcontendsthatOhiodoesnotrecognizetheauthoritytoorderanadministrativewarrant,andconsenttoinspectioncannotbegainedbythethreatofanunlawfulwarrant.InitsReplyBrief,MentorassertsthatPlaintiffdoesnotdemonstrateanyissuesofmaterialfactinitsBriefinOpposition.Further,Mentorcontendsthatanoticeofcode
violationisnotadeprivationofpropertyrightsandthattherentalcodeprovidesadequateproceduraldueprocess.Uponreview,theCourtfindsMentor'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentwelltakenandPlaintiffsMotionforSummaryJudgmentnotwelltaken.Inorderforsummaryjudgmenttobegranted,themovingpartymustprove:(1)nogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactremainstobelitigated;(2)themovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw;and(3)itappearsfromtheevidencethatreasonablemindscancometobutoneconclusion,andviewingsuchevidencemoststronglyinfavorofthenonmovinqparty,thatconclusionisadversetothepartyagainstwhomthemotionforsummaryjudgmentismade.
Mootispawv.Eckstein,
76OhioSt.3d383,385,1996-0:1io-389.
Themovingpartybearstheinitialresponsibilityof:informingthetrialcourtofthe
basisforthemotion,andidentifyingthoseportionsoftherecordwhichdemonstratetheabsenceofagenuineissueoffactonamaterialelementofthenonmovingparty'sclaim.
Dresherv.Burt,
75OhioSt.3d280,296,1996-0hio-107.Ifthemovingpartysatisfiesthe
burden,thenthenonmovingpartyhastheburdenpursuanttoCiv.R.56(E)toprovide
3
:.,'
"",~'"'........'''''r-:•
'.'.-"',,:,':....:
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Kaim vs. Mentor ruling
See details about the decision.
414
Reads
0
Readcasts
3.6K
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
