In January, Cincinnati City Council passed legislation imposing restrictions on residential landlords’ right to collect security deposits from their tenants. Specifically, the ordinance amends Chapter 871 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code to require that certain residential landlords give their tenants alternatives to the traditional security deposit (a payment equal to one month’s rent, due at lease signing). Those alternatives include (1) rental security insurance, (2) a reduced security deposit (no more than 50% of the monthly rent), and (3) payment of the full security deposit, but split-up into at least six smaller, monthly installments.
While the ordinance underwent several redrafts before being approved, the final text is still unclear (and possibly contradictory) in several respects, which could complicate a landlord’s efforts to achieve strict compliance with the new requirements. The following briefly summarizes those inconsistencies, and highlights a few other nuances that landlord’s will want to be aware of:
- Sec 871-9(a)(8) of the Municipal Code, a section added by the ordinance, starts off by saying “Upon a tenant’s request, all landlords . . . shall offer to accept . . .” That language creates the impression that a landlord’s obligation to offer the alternatives is not triggered unless or until a tenant specifically requests. However, Sec 871-9(a)(8)(D) and Sec 871-11 say something different: a landlord actually has an affirmative obligation to offer the alternatives (via the written notice the landlord is required to provide prior to lease signing), and then, if a tenant requests that the landlord accept one of the alternatives, the landlord is obligated to do so. The practical effect is that, at least for new leases, it’s not the tenant, but the landlord, who must initiate the dialogue regarding alternatives.
- There’s a possible inconsistency between Sec 871-9(a)(8) and Sec 871-11. Sec 871-9(a)(8) suggests, in several places, that a landlord is not required to offer all three alternatives, and may choose to offer just one of them. For example, Sec 871-9(a)(8) requires a landlord to “offer to accept at least one of the options”; Sec 871-9(a)(8)(D) requires the landlord to give written notice of “available security deposit alternatives”; and Sec 871-9(a)(8)(E) says that if adequate rental security insurance is not available in Cincinnati, then the landlord can comply with the ordinance by “offering, at his or her option, one of the [other] rental security deposit alternatives.” However, Sec 871-11 lays out the exact language a landlord must include in the written notice given to tenants, and that language specifically mentions all three alternatives (“If a security deposit is required, Tenant has the right to request and Landlord is required to accept one of the following three alternatives . . .”). One way to resolve this inconsistency is to interpret the notice language to mean that the landlord must initially offer all three options (using the exact text required for the tenant notice), but while the tenant may request any of the three, the landlord can choose which one to accept. Of course, it doesn’t really make sense for a landlord to offer all three alternatives if its willing to accept only one of them, but that’s probably the safest way to ensure strict compliance with the ordinance.
- Sec 871-9(a)(8)(A)(iii) and Sec 871-9(a)(9), together, say that the rental security insurance coverage per claim can’t be any less, or any more, than the cash security deposit amount the landlord would otherwise require.
- Section 7 of the ordinance gives landlords until April 14, 2020 (90 days from January 15, 2020, the ordinance date) to start meeting the new requirements.
- Section 8 of the ordinance says that while the new requirements to not apply retroactively to leases already in effect, they do apply to renewals of existing leases. Presumably then, an existing tenant renewing its lease can request one of the alternatives, and the landlord (by April 14th, at least) must be in a position to both accept an alternative and return the tenant’s original deposit. That the ordinance specifically confers this right to renewing tenants who’ve already paid traditional security deposits is interesting in light of the ordinance’s express purpose of “upfront cost relief.”
- The definition of “security deposit” in Sec 871-3(d), which existed prior to and was not modified by the ordinance, is broad and specifically contemplates the possibility of non-cash security deposits (“or other property however dominated”). But the ordinance seems to use the term “security deposit” in a more limited sense, referring to cash deposits only (see, for example, Sec 871-9(a)(8)(B), Sec 871-9(a)(8)(C), and Sec 871-9(a)(9)).
Notably, the ordinance does not impose any penalties on landlords who fail to comply with the new requirements, nor does it give tenants any remedies beyond those already in the Municipal Code. So under Sec 871-15, a tenant seeking to enforce its rights against a non-compliant landlord may either bring an action for injunctive relief or sue the landlord for damages (though it’s unclear what damages, if any, a prospective (non-renewing) tenant might be able to establish). It should also be noted that the definition of “tenant” in Sec 871-3 creates some uncertainty as to whether prospective tenants even have standing to sue. Because while the landlord’s refusal to accept a security deposit alternative would most likely occur prior to lease signing, a person is not a “tenant” under Chapter 871 until he or she is “an occupant of a rental unit.”
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
© 2023 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Real Estate Law
- Environmental Law
- U.S. EPA
- SEC Enforcement
- Clean Water Act
- Tax Credit
- Economic Development
- Environmental Site Assessment
- Opportunity Zone
- JOBS Act
- Tax Abatement
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Toxic Substances Control Act
- Receivership Statute
- Employment Law
- CDFI Fund
- Community Development Entities
- Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
- Hazardous Waste
- New Markets Tax Credit
- NMTC Financing
- Pre-Start Construction
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- Title Insurance
- USEPA Guidance
- Construction Litigation
- Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
- LEED Certification
- Underground Storage Tank
- Storm Water
- Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Highlight Continuing Disclosure Obligations of Municipal Bond Underwriters
- Ohio Governor Mike DeWine Signs Executive Order Requesting Relief for Small Business Commercial Tenants and Commercial Real Estate Borrowers
- COVID-19 and Commercial Real Estate
- Columbus, Ohio ICSC 2020 Recap – The LLC Membership Interest “Loophole”
- Issues for Residential Landlords Attempting to Navigate Cincinnati's New Security Deposit Legislation
- Legal Alert: EPA Repeal of 2015 "Waters of the United States" Rule
- Columbus, Ohio ICSC 2019 Recap – Land Assemblage Best Practices
- Proposed Creation of the Economic Development Bond Bank
- Proposed Ohio Opportunity Zone Tax Credit
- Ohio Opportunity Zone Designations Within the City of Cincinnati