The Akron Legal News

Landlords like tweaked domestic violence bill, but still want other changes

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 20, 2014

After a series of revisions were made to a bill focused on the employment and housing of domestic violence victims, the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association has moved from being opposed to the measure to listing itself as an interested party.

House Bill 297, sponsored by Reps. Anne Gonzales, R-Westerville, and Denise Driehaus, D-Cincinnati, would permit an employee who is a victim of domestic violence to take unpaid leave of absence to deal with issues related to the domestic violence incident.

The proposal also would allow a tenant to terminate a rental agreement or have the tenant’s name removed from a rental agreement as a co-tenant if the tenant or a member of the tenant’s household is a victim of domestic violence.

Similar measures have been introduced in previous General Assemblies.

“OREIA has been involved with the issue of domestic violence for over the last five years. It has worked with each of the sponsors and committees that have heard this bill,” said Charlie Wallner, OREIA government affairs director.

“As property owners we have objected to these bills because applying highly emotional and physical situations of domestic violence to private contracts between a landlord and tenant sets a dangerous precedent. In examining this issue, it must be made clear that property owners are not unsympathetic to domestic violence victims and do not condone violence of one person against another.”

Due to the violent nature of such situations, Wallner said landlords sometimes risk becoming victims themselves.

“With HB 297, Reps. Gonzales and Driehaus have worked with us to understand and address some of the concerns that we have been expressing for the last half decade,” he said. “Overall, this has been a good, healthy and realistic discussion.”

Wallner said HB 297 is “drastically different” from proposed legislation introduced in 2009.

The House Judiciary committee has accepted a number of changes to the bill such as requiring a tenant to notify a landlord within 60 days after filing a petition or motion for a protection order, instead of 90 days in the original version.

The revised bill also requires a landlord, in response to a termination or removal-of-name notice, to offer the tenant another unit not located near the current unit if one is available.

Under the bill, a landlord still has the right to evict a person for other violations of a rental agreement, even if the person is the victim of domestic violence.

If enacted, HB 297 would limit the number of requests to terminate a rental agreement to one request of the same landlord in five years.

It also limits the number of requests for transfers that can be requested from a metropolitan housing authority to two within five years.

The bill, which defines “domestic violence” as the “occurrence of certain acts against a tenant or household member,” states that if a person lives in a manufactured or mobile home, the company that built the home is not required to change the locks of the structure in domestic violence cases.

The amended bill also specifies that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff took unpaid leave pursuant to the bill and that the taking of unpaid leave led to the termination of the plaintiff’s employment.

With regard to household members and notification, one amendment that Wallner said OREIA will continue to lobby for is the permissive ability for a landlord to enter into a new/revised lease agreement if a person is added to the household.

The organization also supports adding provisions to the bill that address knowingly or recklessly inviting an abuser to break a protection order.

“An item discussed at an interested parties meeting is the situation where a tenant who is a victim has a restraining order and knowingly/recklessly invites a respondent on to the property in violation of the court order issued and a further ‘event’ occurs,” he said.

“It is our understanding that under the bill the landlord may not evict the tenant because of the protected status (a court protection ordered has been awarded). We believe a mechanism must be created to allow a landlord to seek from a judge the ability to terminate the lease and cause an eviction of the tenant if this violation occurred after the tenant chooses to stay in the property as a victim.”

In addition, OREIA is calling for a 30-day notice instead of the revised 60-day notice to terminate a lease.

Wallner said Maryland has a 30-day notification standard.

“From the position of the property owner and housing provider in these situations many improvements have been made. We thank the sponsors for working with us and making changes to the bill,” he said.

“However, due to the nature of the legislation and the impact on our membership we are interested parties to this bill.”

Wallner also noted that the federal Violence Against Women Act only applies to public housing, thus, creating an “unprecedented statutory intrusion into Ohio contract law.”

“Additionally, with domestic violence victims permitted to terminate leases, who is the next group of tenants that will be before you seeking to have termination rights afforded to them because of an adverse situation they are facing? Passing this bill would firmly place the General Assembly in the fast lane of a slippery slope of landlord/tenant contract law,” he said.

[Back]