Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. Padgett

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1987No. 86-1537Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHolmes, J.

I am in full agreement with the majority’s decision that a tenant is competent to testify as to the rental value of leased premises in their unrepaired condition. However, I respectfully dissent from Part II of the opinion, as it inequitably *351penalizes landlords who, in good faith, miscalculate the amount they may lawfully withhold from a lessee’s security deposit.

This court set forth the proper parameters for construing the Landlord-Tenant Act in Vardeman v. Llewellyn (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 24, 28, 17 OBR 20, 23-24, 476 N.E. 2d 1038, 1041, wherein we stated:

“The Landlord-Tenant Act must be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Vardeman v. LlewellynOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Albreqt v. ChenOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Berlinger v. Suburban Apartment Management Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Konig v. Bella Dora Management, Inc.Akron Municipal Court · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API