A tenant repeatedly complained to his landlord about cigarette smoke drifting into his apartment from the apartment below him. Despite attempts by the landlord to remedy the situation, the problem continued and the tenant filed an application with the court to put his rent in an escrow account. The trial court ordered the landlord to remedy the problem within 21 days and to refund 50% of the tenant’s rent for a one-year period ($3,834) because of the tenant’s inability to use his master bedroom and closet due to the smoke. The court of appeal agreed with the lower court and affirmed the decision, finding that sufficient evidence was provided to show that the landlord failed to keep the apartment in a fit and habitable condition.
Heck v. Whitehurst Co., 2004 Ohio 4366 (2004).
United States
Aug 20, 2004
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Based on this testimony, the magistrate found, and the lower court concurred, that appellant had not eliminated the problem of cigarette smoke in Heck's apartment. Appellant asserts that Heck failed to produce any evidence by way of dry cleaning receipts or other tangible evidence, that cigarette smoke was infiltrating his apartment. We find the lack of such tangible evidence irrelevant. Whether cigarette smoke is entering an apartment is clearly a question that can be resolved through the testimony of those persons who were exposed to the apartment. The lower court heard the testimony of two witnesses who were familiar with the situation. In such a situation, "the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony." Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80. Given the above testimony, we conclude that the trial court's findings were supported by credible evidence that smoke was infiltrating Heck's apartment and that appellant had not made the repairs necessary to keep the apartment in a fit and habitable condition. The first assignment of error is not well-taken."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A tenant repeatedly complained to his landlord about cigarette smoke drifting into his apartment from the apartment below him. Despite attempts by the landlord to remedy the situation, the problem continued and the tenant filed an application with the court to put his rent in an escrow account. The trial court ordered the landlord to remedy the problem within 21 days and to refund 50% of the tenant’s rent for a one-year period ($3,834) because of the tenant’s inability to use his master bedroom and closet due to the smoke. The court of appeal agreed with the lower court and affirmed the decision, finding that sufficient evidence was provided to show that the landlord failed to keep the apartment in a fit and habitable condition.