In a recent court ruling, a woman faces eviction from her public housing due to unpaid maintenance charges, highlighting the harsh realities of eviction laws and their impact on low-income tenants. Greater Dayton Premier Management (GDPM) filed a complaint against Candace Hicks in the Montgomery County Municipal Court on November 27, 2023, seeking her eviction for failing to pay $139.35 in maintenance charges and damages beyond normal wear and tear.
The case revolves around Hicks’s alleged breach of her lease agreement with GDPM. According to court documents, GDPM issued a notice of termination on October 17, 2023, after Hicks failed to settle outstanding charges for repairs made to her residence. Despite being given 33 days to address the issue or request a grievance hearing, Hicks did not comply. She later argued that the eviction was retaliatory and discriminatory but failed to meet procedural requirements in her appeal.
Hicks’s defense centered on claims of financial hardship and confusion regarding previous legal proceedings involving her tenancy. She testified that she had no income beyond utility allowances provided by GDPM and attempted to make payment after receiving the eviction notice. However, the magistrate found that her nonpayment was willful rather than purely due to financial constraints.
The trial court ultimately upheld the magistrate’s decision, emphasizing that Hicks’s failure to pay was intentional and not mitigated by equitable considerations such as hardship or attempts at resolution. The court noted that while equity could sometimes prevent forfeiture of a leasehold interest, it would not intervene when the tenant’s conduct was deemed willful.
GDPM seeks restitution of the premises as relief from the court, arguing that Hicks materially breached her lease by not paying for repair costs incurred due to damage she caused. The ruling underscores the stringent application of eviction laws even in cases involving minimal amounts owed and highlights challenges faced by low-income tenants in maintaining subsidized housing.
The case was presided over by Judge Mary K. Huffman with Judges Epley and Hanseman concurring in the decision. Attorney Christopher C. Green represented GDPM while Candace Hicks represented herself pro se. The case ID is Montgomery C.A. No. 30561.
Source: CA30561_Greater_Dayton_Premier_Management_v_Hicks_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf