COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84057 OLEG RZAEVA, ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellees : : JOURNAL ENTRY : vs. : and : : OPINION JOHN A. KREBS : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: September 30, 2004 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Lakewood Municipal Court Case No. 03 CVG 12365 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: _______________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellees: OLEG RZAEVA, pro se (Oleg and Leila Rzaeva) 1475 Roycroft Lakewood, Ohio 44107 For Defendant-Appellant: JOHN A. KREBS, pro se 4500 Rockside Road, Suite 450 Independence, Ohio 44131 -2- COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: Defendant-appellant, John A. Krebs ("Krebs"), appeals the court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellees, Oleg and Leila Rzaeva (the "Rzaevas"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. In May 2003, the Rzaevas rented an apartment from Krebs in Lakewood. On August 29, 2003, they sent a letter to Krebs requesting that he repair various hazardous conditions inside the apartment. The conditions included black mold in the basement, a collapsed bathroom ceiling, missing window screens, broken windows, a cracked basement sink, and faulty water heater and furnace. The Rzaevas' letter stated that if the conditions were not remedied within thirty days, they would deposit their rent with the municipal court, ask the court for an order to correct the conditions, or terminate the rental agreement. On September 3, the City of Lakewood Building Department inspected the premises and noted several other violations, involving chimney repair, unapproved plumbing connections, maintenance of the kitchen floor, and electrical work. The City sent a letter to Krebs on September 4, listing the violations and requesting that they be corrected by October 3. On September 8, the Rzaevas filed an application to deposit their rent with the Lakewood Municipal Court. The following day they made their first rent deposit with the court. -3- The City of Lakewood inspected the premises again on October 15 and noted that some repairs had been made but violations remained that needed correction. On October 16, the Rzaevas requested that the court allow a reduction of rent retroactive to their first payment in May. Following a hearing, the court reduced their rent by $250 per month, retroactively to May 2003. The Rzaevas continued to deposit their rent into escrow. Krebs appeals, raising three assignments of error. Timeliness of Notice In his first assignment of error, Krebs argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the Rzaevas'notice to him was timely. When applying an abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 1993-Ohio-122, 614 N.E.2d 748. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error in law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 107, 1995-Ohio-251, 647 N.E.2d 799. R.C. 5321.07 states, in pertinent part: "(A) If a landlord fails to fulfill any obligation imposed upon him by section 5321.04 of the Revised Code, * * * if the conditions of the residential premises are such that the tenant reasonably believes that a landlord has failed to fulfill any such obligations, or if a governmental agency has -4- found that the premises are not in compliance with building, housing, health, or safety codes that apply to any condition of the premises that could materially affect the health and safety of an occupant, the tenant may give notice in writing to the landlord, specifying the acts, omissions, or code violations that constitute noncompliance. * * * (B) If a landlord receives the notice described in division (A) of this section and after receipt of the notice fails to remedy the condition within a reasonable time considering the severity of the condition and the time necessary to remedy it, or within thirty days, whichever is sooner, and if the tenant is current in rent payments due under the rental agreement, the tenant may do one of the following: (1) Deposit all rent that is due and thereafter becomes due the landlord with the clerk of the municipal or county court having jurisdiction in the territory in which the residential premises are located[.]" The trial court found that the collapse of the bathroom ceiling caused by rotting wood created a hazardous situation on the rental premises. The court found that Krebs was aware of the conditions and, thus, the letter constituted timely notice. Krebs claims that he did not receive the Rzaevas' letter until he received notice of their intent to deposit rent on September 8. He contends that the Rzaevas did not give him thirty days to make the necessary repairs. The record reflects that the Rzaevas did not give Krebs a thirty-day notice to remedy the conditions prior to depositing their rent with the court. However, the notice requirement of R.C. 5321.07(A) was satisfied by Krebs'actual knowledge of the problems and condition of the premises. See Sabik v. Drake (Mar. 17, 1988), -5- Cuyahoga App. No. 53588, citing Katzin v. Murad (Jan. 5, 1984), Cuyahoga App. No. 46553. The record demonstrates that Krebs knew of these conditions prior to August 29. He testified that all the conditions cited in the August 29 letter were in existence at the time the Rzaevas took possession of the property in May. Oleg Rzaeva testified that, when they moved into the apartment, they told Krebs about the needed repairs. He stated that they repeatedly called him, and Krebs promised to fix the problems, but never did. Furthermore, R.C. 5321.07(B) does not require that thirty days' notice be given before a tenant may deposit rent with the court. It provides that the repairs must be made within a reasonable time or within thirty days, whichever is sooner. Given the circumstances in this case -- the conditions existed when the Rzaevas took possession of the premises, Krebs knew about the conditions, and the Rzaevas repeatedly requested that the repairs be made -- we find that he was given a reasonable time to complete the repairs. Moreover, if Krebs believed that the notice was untimely, he could have requested a release of funds from the court, pursuant to R.C. 5321.09. However, no such request was made. In light of the evidence before the trial court, there is nothing to indicate that the trial court's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. We find no abuse of discretion in -6- the trial court's determination that the Rzaevas' notice was timely. Accordingly, we overrule the first assignment of error. Reduction of Rent In his second assignment of error, Krebs argues that the trial court erred in reducing the monthly rent in the absence of any competent or credible evidence justifying the amount of reduction. "An appellate court may disregard an assignment of error pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2) if an appellant fails to cite to any legal authority in support of an argument as required by App.R. 16(A)(7)." State v. Martin (July 12, 1999), Warren App. No. CA99-01-003, citing Meerhoff v. Huntington Mortgage Co. (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 164, 169, 658 N.E.2d 1109. "If an argument exists that can support this assignment of error, it is not this court's duty to root it out." Cardone v. Cardone (May 6, 1998), Summit App. Nos. 18349 and 18673. Because Krebs has failed to cite legal authority to support his argument, this court shall disregard this assignment of error. Furthermore, the trial court found that, due to the hazardous conditions that existed at the beginning of their tenancy, the Rzaevas were denied partial use of the rental premises upon which the monthly rent was based, thus warranting the reduction. Although there was no evidence to verify the specific amount of the -7- reduction, Krebs has failed to demonstrate that the amount was unreasonable. Accordingly, the second assignment of error is overruled. Trial Court's Assistance In his third assignment of error, Krebs argues that the trial court abused its discretion by assisting the Rzaevas at trial. App.R. 16(D) provides that any references made to evidence in controversy shall be identified by the page number in the transcript. Here, Krebs fails to affirmatively identify in the record the occasions where he alleges the trial court "continuously assisted" the Rzaevas during the trial. Without specific references to the alleged errors, we are unable to address them. This court is not required to search the record for evidence to support an assignment of error. State v. Watson (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 316, 710 N.E.2d 340. Krebs does, however, identify one statement by page number, in which he claims he was "demeaned"when the trial judge stated: "As you learned in Civics, there's three branches of government * * *." Krebs has failed to demonstrate how this statement was demeaning or prejudicial to his case. Therefore, we find the final assignment of error lacks merit. Judgment affirmed. -8- 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 Lakewood Municipal Court 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. JAMES J. SWEENEY, J. CONCURS; ANN DYKE, P.J., DISSENTS (SEE SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION) COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY JUDGE 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. 22. 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 clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84057 OLEG RZAEVA, ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellees : : D I S S E N T I N G -vs- : O P I N I O N : JOHN A. KREBS : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: September 30, 2004 ANN DYKE, P.J., DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent. There is no dispute that the Rzaevas did not give Krebs the thirty days notice within which to remedy the conditions. See R.C. 5321.07. Although the landlord stated that he knew of the defects, he denied receiving the tenant's letter. (Tr. 4, 21). It is also undisputed that he engaged various contractors to repair the defects. Therefore, in my view, the lower court was unduly harsh and erred in failing to give him a "reasonable time" or thirty days within which to complete the repairs. In addition, although the court focused on nine items which were the basis for the motion for rent reduction, no evidence was -2- presented to demonstrate the actual nature of these items. There were no photographs or other evidence to show the extent of the defects, and the tenant did not testify as to the diminished value. Moreover, the tenant testified to numerous other items which were not previously identified. Clearly, some of these items were not the responsibility of the landlord, i.e., telephone line repair. (Tr. 10, 26). Other items such as cleaning the grate over the floor drain adjacent to the washing machine were simple maintenance items which the tenant should undertake. Numerous other items, including the bathroom ceiling, and painting of the basement, and all of the electric outlets, had been repaired, and the city noted on October 15, 2003 "[m]uch work had been accomplished since the initial inspection." Accordingly, I would reverse this matter. .