Cleveland Housing Court

Witt and Wisdom in a Problem-Solving Court
Housing Court works hard to give parties opportunities to resolve cases without trial. The Court reserves the most
complicated and delicate of these cases for Alternative Dispute Resolution Specialist, C. David Witt. In the summer of 2010, Mr. Witt
helped parties resolve a contentious dispute involving a Warehouse District nightclub. Residential tenants and nearby businesses
complained about the large, unruly crowds attracted by the hip-hop club. The owner of the building took legal action against
the owner of the club, who, backed by the NAACP, claimed that racism was behind the efforts to shut down his business.
Three lawsuits were filed, including one in Housing Court. The landlord claimed that the club’s noise levels violated the lease.
Judge Pianka directed the case to Mr. Witt for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). After multiple settlement conferences, the
parties resolved the case with an agreement that encompassed noise levels, the role of bouncers and the eventual expiration
of the club’s lease. Though hardly typical of the cases he handles, Mr. Witt points to it as an example of how ADR works. “We
don’t settle everything, but we settle almost everything,” he says. In fact, 92 percent of 235 civil cases that went to Mr. Witt
for ADR in 2014 resulted in non-trial settlements. “Ruling on a case is usually about winning and losing. At least half your parties
leave disappointed. Mediation, on the other hand, is not about winning and losing. It’s about problem solving. In that sense, a
successful mediation is a better resolution of a dispute, both emotionally and practically.”
ADR isn’t just for the large and complex cases, however. Many
eviction cases also are resolved through mediation. Gary Katz,
a Housing Court Mediator, estimated that he handles 1,400 of
the more than 10,000 civil cases that come before the court
each year. In a typical resolution to an eviction case, the tenant
agrees to leave, and the landlord gives the tenant more time
to find other accommodations. The Judge and Magistrates
can refer cases to mediation or other ADR opportunities,
or the parties involved can request it at any stage. “It’s a
practical thing to bring a case to an agreed resolution and
know what that resolution is, rather than leave it up to a third
party like a magistrate,” Witt says. “Sometimes mediation
can be a cathartic experience. Finally they get to tell their
story, and having told the story, they might be more amenable to
reaching a settlement.”
editors wrote, “we think the Municipal Court judges who now try
these cases have not given enough thought to the cancer which slums
and rank overcrowding have created in this city. . . The wrist-slapping
business must be stopped.” 12
The clarion call for a housing court continued into the 1960s. The
Urban League formed a community action group in April 1961 to keep
up the pressure for immediate action on unsafe housing. They asked
that landlords’ and tenants’ responsibilities be posted in multi-family
dwellings throughout the city, and were charged with exploring the
usefulness of a housing court in Cleveland. 13
In 1964, freshman councilman (and former housing inspector) George
L. Forbes, moved City Council to request the General Assembly to
establish a housing division within Cleveland Municipal Court. 14
Several months later, on February 1, 1965, three councilmen
consented to make the request of state legislators as part of their
proposal for a new neighborhood rehabilitation program. 15 Forbes
responded in April by proposing a “housing clinic” to augment the
work of Cleveland Municipal Court in fighting neighborhood blight. 16
The rhetoric intensified that September, when mayoral candidate Carl
B. Stokes declared war on slum landlords as part of his campaign
platform: “I would make absentee slum ownership an unprofitable
business,” he declared. He added that as mayor, he would set up a
housing court independent of Cleveland Municipal Court. 17 The
rallying cry persisted through the remainder of the decade, with
local and state candidates and officers of both political parties calling
for housing reform. Actual progress toward creation of Cleveland
Housing Court did not come about, however, until well into the
tumultuous 1970s.
7