Property owners to receive money back from inspections
Residents wonder, however, why program is still up and running.
OAKWOOD — A decades-old Oakwood program that required houses and properties to be inspected prior to being sold was found unconstitutional earlier this year, then updated recently, city officials said, in order to comply with the law.
The fallout, however, has continued as more residents and the city are at odds, and some are asking how the program can still be up and running.
The Oakwood Pre-Sale and Inspection Program required properties to pass an inspection by the city prior to being sold. In May 2016, the 1851 Center filed suit in federal court, arguing the requirement amounted to a warrantless search. Court records show the suit was initiated on behalf of lead plaintiff Jason Thompson, who was threatened with jail time if he transferred property he owned to a limited liability company he owned, without first paying for and completing the pre-sale inspection.
In February, Judge Thomas M. Rose of the Southern District of Ohio issued a 40-page ruling that rejected the pre-sale inspections and granted the return of inspections fees to all affected homeowners. The court granted summary judgment to 1,055 plaintiffs totaling $72,780 in pre-sale
their property if they refused the inspection, the court found the law unconstitu- tionally coercive.” inspection fees that involved Maurice Thompson, direc1,213 inspections. Each plain- tor of the 1851 Center for Contiff was identified as having stitutional Law, which reppaid a $60 inspection fee. resented the homeowners
Mike Self, owner of Popin the federal suit, said all lar Property Management, of the money should reach manages several rental prop- the plaintiffs soon. erties in Oakwood for mili“The deadline for the city tary families stationed outto pay the plaintiffs is 90 side of the area. He said he days from Oct. 26,” he said. is glad the court ruled for “It should all be taken care the plaintiffs and said sevof by the end of January.” eral of his military clients Oakwood did not conwill be happy with the result. test the plaintiffs’ claim in
“They’ll be pleased to the suit according to court know that they may be receivrecords, but the city still has ing refunds from the city,” the pre-sale inspection prohe said. “The $60 inspec- gram running. tion fee is the same the city Law Director Rob Jacques charges when a rental prop- said the city was granted erty changes tenants.” approval by the court in
Attorney Kristin Rosan said March to implement an the ruling upheld the notion updated ordinance. that Oakwood’s inspection “Although it was entirely ordinance violates Fourth constitutional when first Amendment rights. adopted, an inadvertent
“The court ruled these change was made to the laws requiring mandatory ordinance in 1992,” Jacques inspections violate owners’ said. “As a result a provision Fourth Amendment rights was deleted that would have because the laws subject allowed the Code Enforceowners to a warrantless ment Officer to seek an search without consent,” administrative search warRosan explained. “Because rant in the event that an the municipality could deny owner objected to an intean owner the right to sell rior inspection of his or her home.”
He added the absence of the provision in the 1992 ordinance is what prompted the lawsuit, and the provision is included in the updated ordinance.
“Owners who plan to sell homes in Oakwood are required to obtain and pay for an inspection prior to sale, as they have since 1968,” Jacques said. “But there are now procedural safeguards in place that will allow the city to seek a search warrant in the event that an owner refuses consent for the interior inspection.”
Thompson, from the 1851 Center, said his organization will be ready to challenge the city again in court if they conduct warrantless searches.
“If the city sees something on a property or has concerns that are legitimate regarding somethinga homeowner needs to fix, then that is a probable cause for a warrant,” he said. “But if they are conducting warrantless searches, then we would be willing to go back to court.”