594 N.E.2d 190
No. 91CV17713.Municipal Court, Hamilton County.
Decided October 18, 1991.
Page 189
Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati and Kelly A. Malone, for plaintiff.
Peter R. DeHaan, for defendant.
TIMOTHY S. HOGAN, Judge.
Before the court is the defendant’s motion to set bond.
The facts which form the basis for the court’s decision today are set forth as follows: The plaintiff, Arlette Brown, was a tenant in a federally subsidized apartment located on Williamsburg Drive and owned by the defendant, Fay Apartments. The tenant’s portion of the rent was $56, and the remainder of the $259 monthly rental was paid by the government.
A fire occurred in a second floor bedroom on May 8, 1991 and the fire resulted in damages in excess of $15,000. Although the cause of the fire may be debatable, the tenant attributes the cause of the fire to be her niece, Sheenan, a child of age five or six. Repairs to the premises were completed on August 2, 1991, and the unit became habitable then.
The plaintiff tenant filed this suit against defendant for failure to rehouse her after the fire. The defendant responded with a counterclaim for eviction, and plaintiff requested a jury on the eviction claim of the defendant.
Defendant relies upon R.C. 1923.08 to force the plaintiff to post bond. That section states in pertinent part:
“No continuance in an action under this chapter shall be granted for a period longer than eight days, * * * unless the defendant [tenant] applies for the continuance and gives a bond to the plaintiff [landlord] * * * conditioned for the payment of rent that may accrue, if judgment is rendered against the defendant.”
The public policy behind this statute is obvious. It is that a landlord shall not suffer financial hardship while a person the landlord is attempting to evict is defending the claim. It is not meant to compel the payment of past rent claimed to be due.
Since the defendant has offered to rehouse plaintiff pending a final decision on the merits of the pending claims, and since the government will continue to pay to defendant the subsidized portion of plaintiff’s rent, the court sees no reason to require as a condition of bond that plaintiff pay into court the entire rent of $259 per month from June 1, 1991 until October 1, 1991, but rather, the court requires that bond be posted in the amount of the tenant’s share (nonsubsidized share), effective November 1, 1991. Defendant’s obligations under paragraph 11 of the lease shall be determined at trial.
So ordered.
Page 190