Oakwood home inspections may have to refund fees
said Jacques. “We just decision on Thursday or the city used outside the litigation, so we ting scheduled to dis- se. We’re still digest- sion to see what parts ble and there are still live in the case that olved by that decision. wait to see how those or look at appealing ling, those are all open this point.”
Oakwood ordinance, it l for a property owner title or ownership of a change tenants with- n inspection conducted
After completing the e city issued a “certif- upancy.” Without the new owner or tenant gally occupy or use the y property owner who ply with the inspection or who occupied the thout a valid certifi- pancy was guilty of a meanor, according to r, Ohio Realtors Vice Legal Services.
In the lawsuit, Ritenour said, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judg- ment that the ordinance was uncon- stitutional, an injunction against the city from enforcing the ordinance and restitution of the $60 inspec- tion fee. Shortly after the suit was filed, Oakwood agreed to a pre- liminary injunction that suspended enforcement of certain provisions of the ordinance. Two months later, Oakwood passed an emergency order repealing the ordinance and replacing it with one that provides for an administrative warrant pro- cedure. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not challenge the amended ordi- nance.
A similar challenge is also pend- ing in the federal court for the northern district of Ohio involving the point of sale inspection process in Bedford, a Cleveland suburb. That case has also been certified as a class action, Ritenour noted.
In reaching its decision that the Oakwood ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment, the court cited a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case as well as a recent federal court case that struck down a Portsmouth,
