(A) Subject to section 5321.03 of the Revised Code, a landlord may not retaliate against a tenant by increasing the tenant's rent, decreasing services that are due to the tenant, or bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession of the tenant's premises because:
(1) The tenant has complained to an appropriate governmental agency of a violation of a building, housing, health, or safety code that is applicable to the premises, and the violation materially affects health and safety;
(2) The tenant has complained to the landlord of any violation of section 5321.04 of the Revised Code;
(3) The tenant joined with other tenants for the purpose of negotiating or dealing collectively with the landlord on any of the terms and conditions of a rental agreement.
(B) If a landlord acts in violation of division (A) of this section the tenant may:
(1) Use the retaliatory action of the landlord as a defense to an action by the landlord to recover possession of the premises;
(2) Recover possession of the premises; or
(3) Terminate the rental agreement.
In addition, the tenant may recover from the landlord any actual damages together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
(C) Nothing in division (A) of this section shall prohibit a landlord from increasing the rent to reflect the cost of improvements installed by the landlord in or about the premises or to reflect an increase in other costs of operation of the premises.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Weishaar v. Strimbu, 601 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
Weishaar v. Strimbu, 601 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 9דIn his complaint, Weishaar alleged that the Strimbus failed to perform all the conditions of an oral lease agreement, failed to provide an agreed to written lease agreement, and took retaliatory action in violation of R.C. 5321.02, thereby causing him to vacate the leased…”
Elyse De Stefano v. Apts. Downtown, Inc., 879 N.W.2d 155 (Iowa 2016). · cites it 2ד(quoting Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5321.02 ). The Ohio court concluded that the legislature intended damages and attorneys’ fees to be separate items, and attorneys’ fees should be taxed as costs.”
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Watkins, 491 N.E.2d 701 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8דAt that time, the court held that the forcible entry and detainer action was “retaliatory” within the meaning of R.C. 5321.02 2 and awarded appellee attorney fees in the amount of $2,110.”
Fluellen v. Miller, 2024 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8דFluellen’s primary argument in support of her second assignment of error is that the trial court erred when it evaluated the retaliation claim brought pursuant to R.C. 5321.02. For the following reasons, we agree.”
Karas v. Floyd, 440 N.E.2d 563 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5דAppellee admitted having received proper notice of the action but, pursuant to R.C. 5321.02, argued that the action constituted a retaliatory eviction.”
Howard v. Simon, 480 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3דThe alleged improper ex parte contact occurred when Simon’s counsel appeared before the trial court to request a temporary restraining order based on R.C. 5321.02 for Harper’s benefit. DR 7-110 forbids ex parte communication concerning the merits of the case.”
Meacham v. Miller, 606 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2ד2d 961, 962 , the court discussed the concept of awarding attorney fees in landlord and tenant actions: “R.C. 5321.02 is part of the Ohio Landlords and Tenants Act, R.”
Crenshaw v. Rowland, 965 N.E.2d 341 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3דThe court in Drake , however, addressed the question “whether, under R.C. 5321.02, the entitlement to and amount of attorneys’ fees awarded for retaliatory conduct is a question for the court or for the jury.”
Landings at Beckett Ridge v. Holmes, 2020 Ohio 6900 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Holmes argued for the first time that Landings' eviction proceedings and refusal to accept the rent payment were retaliatory in violation of R.C. 5321.02(A). Holmes claimed that Landings was retaliating against her because she had sent a letter to the U.”
Cont'l Ents., Ltd. v. Franklin, 2016 Ohio 3055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14ד{¶2} Continental provides a single assignment of error, that the trial court erred in concluding that Continental engaged in retaliatory conduct as prohibited by R.C. 5321.02. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s decision.”
Tiefenbacher v. Shorter, 2021 Ohio 2624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “§5321.02 not hearing grounds on retaliation which prohibits landlord from retaliating by.”
Hickory Grove Investors, Ltd. v. Jackson, 904 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2דIn the counterclaim, Jackson and Deal, on their own behalf and on behalf of Daiqwon, asserted claims for (1) retaliatory eviction in violation of R.C. 5321.02, (2) common-law negligence, (3) negligence per se based upon a violation of R.”
Landings at Beckett Ridge v. Holmes, 2020 Ohio 6900 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Holmes argued for the first time that Landings' eviction proceedings and refusal to accept the rent payment were retaliatory in violation of R.C. 5321.02(A). Holmes claimed that Landings was retaliating against her because she had sent a letter to the U.”
Weishaar v. Strimbu, 601 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “In his complaint, Weishaar alleged that the Strimbus failed to perform all the conditions of an oral lease agreement, failed to provide an agreed to written lease agreement, and took retaliatory action in violation of R.C. 5321.02, thereby causing him to vacate the leased…”
Weishaar v. Strimbu, 601 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “In his complaint, Weishaar alleged that the Strimbus failed to perform all the conditions of an oral lease agreement, failed to provide an agreed to written lease agreement, and took retaliatory action in violation of R.C. 5321.02, thereby causing him to vacate the leased…”
Fluellen v. Miller, 2024 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Fluellen’s primary argument in support of her second assignment of error is that the trial court erred when it evaluated the retaliation claim brought pursuant to R.C. 5321.02. For the following reasons, we agree.”
Fluellen v. Miller, 2024 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Fluellen’s primary argument in support of her second assignment of error is that the trial court erred when it evaluated the retaliation claim brought pursuant to R.C. 5321.02. For the following reasons, we agree.”
Howard v. Simon, 480 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “The alleged improper ex parte contact occurred when Simon’s counsel appeared before the trial court to request a temporary restraining order based on R.C. 5321.02 for Harper’s benefit. DR 7-110 forbids ex parte communication concerning the merits of the case.”
Fluellen v. Miller, 2024 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Fluellen’s primary argument in support of her second assignment of error is that the trial court erred when it evaluated the retaliation claim brought pursuant to R.C. 5321.02. For the following reasons, we agree.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.02(B) — 1 case
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Watkins, 491 N.E.2d 701 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “At that time, the court held that the forcible entry and detainer action was “retaliatory” within the meaning of R.C. 5321.02 2 and awarded appellee attorney fees in the amount of $2,110.”
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Watkins, 491 N.E.2d 701 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “At that time, the court held that the forcible entry and detainer action was “retaliatory” within the meaning of R.C. 5321.02 2 and awarded appellee attorney fees in the amount of $2,110.”
Crenshaw v. Rowland, 965 N.E.2d 341 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “The court in Drake , however, addressed the question “whether, under R.C. 5321.02, the entitlement to and amount of attorneys’ fees awarded for retaliatory conduct is a question for the court or for the jury.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.