Northfield Park Associates v. Northeast Ohio Harness
36 Ohio App. 3d 14, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10461, 521 N.E.2d 466 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A 'self-help' provision in a commercial lease, which permits a landlord to re-enter and repossess the premises without legal process upon the tenant's default, is not against public policy and is enforceable, provided the repossession is conducted peacefully.
Facts:
- Northfield Park Associates ('Northfield') owned a harness racing track and leased it to several entities, including Northeast Ohio Harness ('Northeast').
- The lease required Northeast to pay all operating costs, maintain the premises in good repair, and secure racing permits for future years.
- Over several years, Northeast materially breached the lease by failing to pay utility bills (resulting in service termination), failing to pay for insurance, allowing the property to fall into significant disrepair, and failing to apply for racing permits for the upcoming year.
- From December 1982 to November 1984, Northfield provided Northeast with numerous written and verbal notices of these defaults.
- The lease contained a 'self-help' clause allowing Northfield to re-enter and repossess the property 'with or without process of law' if a default continued for 10 days after written notice.
- On November 9, 1984, Carl Milstein, a Northfield partner, accompanied by armed security guards, re-entered and took possession of the racetrack premises.
- Northeast employees present at the time of the re-entry offered no resistance and acquiesced in the takeover.
Procedural Posture:
- Northfield Park Associates sued Northeast Ohio Harness and its partners in the trial court, seeking damages and an injunction.
- Northfield filed an amended complaint, adding Grandview Raceway as a defendant and seeking a declaration terminating all leases.
- Northeast filed a counterclaim against Northfield for monetary damages and injunctive relief.
- Grandview filed a counterclaim against Northfield, alleging breach of lease and trespass.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, Northfield, on all of its claims and on the counterclaims filed by the defendants.
- Northeast (appellant) and Grandview (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a self-help provision in a commercial lease, which allows a landlord to re-enter and repossess the premises without legal process upon the tenant's default, violate public policy and constitute trespass when the repossession is peaceful?
Opinions:
Majority - Hofstetter, J.
No. A self-help provision in a commercial lease allowing for peaceful repossession without legal process upon a tenant's default is not void as against public policy. The court reasoned that while the Ohio legislature has statutorily prohibited self-help evictions for residential premises, its silence regarding commercial leases implies that such provisions remain permissible in a commercial context. The court distinguished this case from residential tenancies, emphasizing that it involved a commercial lease between sophisticated parties who had the benefit of legal counsel and bargained for the lease terms. Because Northfield's repossession was conducted peacefully and without a breach of the peace, and with the acquiescence of Northeast's employees, its actions were authorized by the lease and did not constitute trespass. The court found that Northeast was in material breach of numerous lease provisions and had received adequate notice over an extended period, thus justifying Northfield's invocation of the self-help clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legality of 'self-help' repossession for commercial landlords in Ohio, drawing a sharp distinction between the protections afforded to commercial versus residential tenants. By highlighting the legislature's decision to regulate only residential evictions, the court affirmed that sophisticated commercial parties are free to contract for such remedies. This precedent provides commercial landlords with a potentially faster and less expensive alternative to the formal eviction process, but conditions its lawfulness on the peaceful nature of the repossession. The ruling underscores the importance for commercial tenants to be aware that these clauses are enforceable and that they cannot rely on the statutory protections available to residential tenants.
