Appeals court revives lawsuit

Fire-code case returns to county courts

A defamation suit against Oberlin College that was thrown out in July was reinstated this past Wednesday.

The suit, brought on by six local landlords, accuses the College and President Nancy Dye of libel and interference with contractual and business relationships.

The plaintiffs cite a letter sent out by Dye on March 11, 1998, which denied students from getting permission from Residential Life to live in unlicensed rooming houses.

The letter went on to name specifically and give the addresses of rooming house owners who do not have licenses from the city, due either to what the city considers failure to meet fire safety codes or to refusal on behalf of the landlords to submit to certain inspections.

These landlords are Betty Baxter, Kathalee and Van Kirkendall, Glenn Gall, Carol Graham, and David Sonner.

The reasons for the refusal of the inspections, according to the landlords, is that they feel that the city is trying to retroactively and illegally enforce certain codes. Some of these codes were instated after their rooming houses were already in operation and should only apply to houses that were licensed after the codes were passed.

Landlord Glenn Gall was denied a license because he has a ladder leading from one of his rooms. According to Gall, this ladder leads from his son's room and could, in the case of a fire, be his only exit if the hall were too full of smoke. For this reason, he says, he refuses to remove the ladder.

The College feels that the issue at heart is non-compliance with fire safety codes and refuses to let students rent from persons who did not pass safety inspections. This is not the issue at heart for the landlords, however. "I intend to fully comply to any fairly enforced codes," Gall said. The landlords' belief, however, is that the codes are not being fairly enforced.

The state could agree, for not only has it ruled that the city could not retroactively enforce codes, but it is now investigating the city's inspection policies.

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on April 10, 1998 with the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. President Dye and the College are the named defendants, and their subsequent move to dismiss the suit was granted because the judge found that the plaintiffs had no claim upon which relief could be granted.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision because the court "failed to determine beyond doubt that the plaintiffs could prove no set facts entitling them to recovery," court documents state.

"We believe the case has absolutely no merit," said Al Moran, vice- president of college communications.

The Ninth Judicial District Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs and reversed the judgement of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. It also called for further proceedings, meaning that the case will go back to the court of common pleas and will be retried by the same judge.

The costs of the appellate court proceedings were taxed to the College.

This determined tango between the College and the landlords has been going on for three years. In a recent twist, two of the college's own residences are now being investigated to determine whether or not they are illegal rooming houses.

The residences, Russia House and Old Barrows, are being reviewed by the city solicitor to see whether or not they qualify as rooming houses. The College does not have rooming house licenses, which would make the houses illegal if they are in fact ruled to be rooming houses.