Cleveland Housing Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ew Challenges Test the Court Two decades after its creation, the Court already had become an essential component of the City. But a new decade for the Housing Court brought new challenges. The Housing Court continued to adapt itself to meet these challenges with creative and effective solutions. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, vacant properties marred many of Cleveland’s once-vibrant neighborhoods. Estimates placed between 10,000 to as many as 25,000 vacant and abandoned properties in Cleveland. Following years of predatory lenders and often unscrupulous companies with no legitimate paperwork on properties, Cuyahoga County was also at the crossroads of another major obstacle: the foreclosure crisis, which hit Cleveland early and hard. By 2007, when the rest of the nation was just beginning to feel the effects of the housing bubble, foreclosures in Cuyahoga County surged past 14,000 a year. Vandals destroyed vacant properties and stripped empty homes of plumbing, heating equipment, and recyclable materials. Homeowners whose properties were in foreclosure often were dismayed to learn that though they could not afford their homes, they were still the legal owners of the properties, and thus responsible for their upkeep. Responding to this challenge, the National Vacant Properties Campaign and Neighborhood Progress, Inc. published Cleveland at the Crossroads. This comprehensive report urged greater cooperation among city leaders, CDCs, and the private sector to identify vacant properties and develop an enforcement and development strategy. 35 Judge Pianka recognized the need to enforce the City Building and Housing Code, while simultaneously encouraging the partnership and creative solutions offered by the Crossroads report, in an essay he wrote for the Northeast Ohio Apartment Association. 35 21
The often unscrupulous practice of property “flipping” exacerbated the foreclosure crisis in Cleveland. 37 In search of fast money, land speculators descended upon Cleveland, purchased condemned properties, and resold them at substantial markups—often without ever seeing the property, or making any improvements. These investors wanted to resell the houses quickly at a profit; compliance was not part of their plan. Mortgage companies—many out of state, and many willing to provide loans with little or no documentation—helped facilitate the scheme of property flippers. 38 Notorious among these investors was Raymond Delacruz. According to an August 28, 2000 article in the Plain Dealer, “records show[ed] that Delacruz and his associates . . . bought and resold at least 50 properties, enjoying a return on their purchase investment of roughly 85 percent, while holding onto the properties an average of just four months each.” 39 In one example, Delacruz, through his associate, purchased a property on Kolar Avenue for just over $20,000. However, the deed Delacruz recorded, along with an accompanying affidavit, falsely stated the associate paid $75,000 for the property. 40 Seven months later, Delacruz sold the Kolar Avenue property for $87,000. 41 Delacruz was later cited for myriad housing violations at the property. When Delacruz failed to bring the property up to code, Judge Pianka sentenced him to thirty days of house arrest in the property, so that Delacruz could properly “focus [his] energies” on the property. 42 Delacruz subsequently was convicted of federal mortgage and real estate fraud for his operations throughout Cleveland and Columbus. 43 The City had a difficult time enforcing local codes with respect to “property flipping” for various reasons. First, Cleveland has no law requiring home inspections at the point of sale. Second,although the City passed an “anti-flipping” ordinance in 2003, 44 the Ohio Supreme Court later held the ordinance was preempted under the Ohio Constitution by powers reserved to the State. 45 Third, though the City had previously passed a Certificate of Disclosure ordinance, prosecutors had rarely used it. 46 That particular ordinance requires a seller of any one, two, three, or four- 58 The “Clean Hands” Docket “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You are here today because one or more parties to your case have outstanding criminal warrants and/or fines with the Cleveland Housing Court. Judge Pianka requires you to clear up these outstanding issues before allowing you to proceed in your eviction case.” This is the opening announcement to attendees of the Housing Court’s Eviction-Warrant Docket. In 2008, Judge Pianka noticed he was signing entries granting writs of restitution for evictions, while signing judgment entries to issue warrants for the same parties on his criminal docket. There is a longstanding legal principle that “he who seeks equity must do equity, and that he must come into Court with clean hands.” Christman v. Christman (1960), 171 Ohio St. 152. The Eviction-Warrant Docket was created to further prevent this practice, as well as to clear up outstanding cases pending in the Court. 22 In one case, a corporate Landlord cleared up outstanding warrants and fines that were preventing it from moving forward on its eviction case, before the Eviction-Warrant Docket hearing; the Court therefore allowed it to proceed. However, the Tenant also appeared that day, and agreed to vacate the premises. The parties were able to reach an agreement through the Court’s Mediation Program. The Court considers this a win-winwin scenario: the Landlord received the remedy it sought; the Tenant’s goal of a “soft landing” was met; and the Court resolved its outstanding warrants and fines. Over 830 cases have been referred to the Court’s “Clean Hands” Docket since it began in 2008. As a result, hundreds of warrants and capiases have been cleared up and thousands of dollars in unpaid fines have been collected as a result of referral to this specialized docket.
Page 2 and 3: We Shape Our Cities, And Thereafter
Page 4 and 5: he Housing Court has jurisdiction o
Page 6: It has been my privilege to be the
Page 9 and 10: Columbia, holding Congress could co
Page 12 and 13: ocial and Political Change Bolsters
Page 14: Housing Court - Justice Beyond the
Page 17 and 18: hiring more than one Housing Specia
Page 20 and 21: oactive Court The 1990s ushered in
Page 22: collaborating with the Northeast Oh
Page 28 and 29: evitalization and Resilience As the
Page 30 and 31: first year, 2008, this family-frien
Page 32 and 33: 2000’s 2010’s 2003 The Court be
Page 35 and 36: Notes The Early Years: The Emergenc
Page 37: Adobe: Creative, marketing and docu

Cleveland Housing Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?