COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71517 B. MESNICK, et al : [J. SHARWELL sole appellant] : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION DE VILLE APARTMENTS, et al : : Defendants-appellees : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 312,546 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: J. SHARWELL, pro se 23511 Chagrin Boulevard, #201 Beachwood, Ohio 44122 For defendants-appellees: SHELDON BERNS Attorney at Law Kahn, Kleinman, Yanowitz & Arnson Co., L.P.A. 2600 Erieview Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1824 HOLMES, J.: 2 Plaintiff-appellant J. Sharwell appeals from the decision of the trial court that granted the motion filed by defendants- appellees De Ville Apartments, Zehman-Wolf Management, John H. Davis, Donald M. Kalish, Milton A. Wolf and Martin L. Stein to dismiss the case that Sharwell brought against them. The record reflects that plaintiff-appellant commenced this action in his own name pro se against the above named defendants- appellees on July 29, 1996.1 The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. Betty Mesnick entered into a lease agreement with Zehman-Wolf Management Co. for apartment #201 in the De Ville apartment complex in Beachwood, Ohio. The termination date for Mesnick's lease was July 31, 1996. Near the end of the leasehold period, Zehman-Wolf management contacted Mesnick regarding the renewal of her lease and the terms under which the lease could be renewed. Defendants- appellees explained by way of letter that the rent for the apartment at the De Ville complex was being raised due to increased taxes, utility costs and maintenance expenses. Appellant, in his complaint, alleged that appellees used misleading and deceptive sales method while attempting to negotiate a new lease. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants-appellees stated reasons for the rent increase for a new lease beginning 1 Although the names of two additional plaintiffs, B. Mesnick and Rosalind Sharwell, appear in the caption of the complaint, neither additional plaintiff was represented by counsel nor signed the pleadings pro se in the original action or in this appeal and, hence, neither is a party to this appeal. 3 August 1, 1996 were due to increased taxes, utility costs, maintenance expenses and in keeping with comparable suites in the area, and such reasons were misleading and deceptive statements and, consequently, violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. On August 23, 1996, defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6). Defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss was granted by the court on September 27, 1996 after briefing by the parties. Plaintiff- appellant appeals this decision of the lower court and presents one assignment of error for our review. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR DISMISSAL BY THE TRIAL COURT UPON THE BASIS THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED WAS ERROR. We must overrule the assignment of error. In ruling on a motion pursuant to Civ.R.12(B)(6), a court must, as a matter of law, accept all the allegations in the complaint as true. Perez v. Cleveland (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 397. To grant such a motion, it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. Greely v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228. The claimant argues that the rental requested of the tenant, Betty Mesnick, in the proposed new lease was unreasonable. Ohio law does not place property owners under an obligation to limit their rental prices to any standard of reasonableness. 4 Additionally,the law of Ohio, as a general rule, does not mandate a landlord to renew or extend a lease for a definite period of time unless provided for within the lease agreement. There is no claim by the plaintiff that the lease provided for any renewal or extension and, more specifically, there is no claim that any such right of renewal or extension of the lease would be at the same rental rate. In this case, plaintiff Betty Mesnick's lease expired on July 31, 1996. Appellee Zehman-Wolf Management, Inc. was under no obligation to relet the premises to her under the same terms of the lease. The appellant contends that appellees have violated the Ohio Consumers Sales Practices Act, which covers consumer transactions. The Ohio Supreme Court in Heritage Hills, Ltd. v. Deacon (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 83, held that R.C. Chap. 1345 does not apply to residential lease transactions. Therefore, appellant's argument in this respect also has no merit. Appellant argues for the first time in this appeal that the landlord's methods of negotiating a lease violate the Civil Rights Act of 1968. As the appellant had not set forth any claim for a Civil Rights Act violation in his complaint, appellant has waived this argument, and such claim may not be brought for the first time on appeal. Lippy v. Soc. Natl. Bank (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 33, 40. Accordingly, where we consider all the allegations in the appellant's complaint as true, on its face, appellant's complaint 5 fails to state any recognized cause of action under Ohio law. Appellant can prove no set of facts under which he can recover on the claims made in his complaint; hence, the trial court properly granted the appellees' motion to dismiss the appellant's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The decision of the trial court is affirmed. 6 It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOHN T. PATTON, P.J. and LEO M. SPELLACY, J. CONCUR JUDGE ROBERT E. HOLMES* SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: Robert E. Holmes, retired Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .