Skip to main content

Kettering Square Apts. v. Crawford

Ohio Ct. App.December 15, 2017No. 27504 27545 27548Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Hall
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting restitution to Kettering Square Apartments, upholding the landlord's right to evict the tenant for lease violations despite the tenant's disability accommodation request.

Excerpt

The question whether the trial court erred by overruling Appellant's motion to stay the writ of restitution pending objections is moot because the court later did grant a stay. Even if the trial court's reasons for overruling Appellant's objections to the magistrate's decision are erroneous, the errors are harmless. The overruling of the objections was correct for other reasons. The notice of termination of Appellant's lease was not defective. Appellee did not waive Appellant's lease breach, because Appellee did not accept payments from Appellant after it served the notice of termination. Appellee effectively granted Appellant the reasonable accommodation that she requested. Judgments affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

# Kettering Square Apartments v. Crawford: Plain English Summary **What Happened** Crawford, a tenant at Kettering Square Apartments, faced eviction for violating the lease agreement. Crawford requested accommodation for a disability, arguing the apartment failed to meet accessibility needs. The case involved disputes about whether the landlord properly handled the eviction process and whether it should have made changes to accommodate Crawford's disability. **The Court's Decision** The appeals court sided with the apartment complex. The court ruled that the landlord properly terminated Crawford's lease and had the right to proceed with eviction. The court determined that the notice of eviction was valid and that the landlord didn't waive its rights by any prior actions. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows important limits on disability accommodation protections in housing. While workers and tenants have rights to reasonable accommodations for disabilities, those rights don't automatically override all lease violations. Landlords can still enforce lease terms if violations are genuine. However, tenants facing eviction should know that landlords must still follow proper legal procedures and cannot ignore legitimate disability-related needs entirely—they just can't use accommodation requests to avoid all consequences for actual lease breaches.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.