The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the rulings of the Portage County Court regarding a rental dispute between Constellation Ohio, L.L.C. and tenant Jasmyn McClain. The court's decision, issued on September 14, 2026, affects both the responsibilities of landlords and the rights of tenants, particularly regarding pet fees and lease agreements.
This case, identified by docket number 2025-P-0076, centers on McClain's claims against Constellation Ohio and its owner, Bron Roeder, regarding additional fees for her emotional support animal, as well as allegations of discrimination and retaliation. The court's ruling clarifies the legal obligations of landlords in Ohio and the protections available to tenants.
McClain entered into a lease agreement with Constellation Ohio on July 7, 2023. She signed the lease, which included a non-refundable pet deposit and a monthly pet fee, despite claiming she was not informed about these charges. McClain's daughter, who has a disability, required an emotional support animal, which she argued should exempt her from the additional fees. The situation escalated as McClain reported several maintenance issues in the apartment, leading to her decision to terminate the lease and move out.
After moving out, McClain did not receive her security deposit back and subsequently filed a counterclaim against Constellation Ohio. Her claims included discrimination under Ohio law, retaliation for her complaints about the apartment's condition, breach of lease, and failure to return her security deposit. The case moved through the legal system, with various motions for summary judgment filed by both parties.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Constellation Ohio on several counts of McClain's counterclaims. McClain appealed the trial court's decisions, arguing that the court erred in its rulings, particularly regarding discrimination and retaliation claims.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge John J. Eklund, affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court found that McClain could not establish discrimination based on the pet fees, as these fees applied to all tenants and were not specific to her situation. The court stated, "Appellant cannot establish that Appellees discriminated on the basis of disability by charging a generally applicable pet fee."
Furthermore, the court ruled that McClain's claims of retaliation were unfounded, noting that no adverse actions were taken against her for her complaints about the apartment. The court emphasized that threats of eviction due to non-payment of fees do not constitute retaliation when no formal eviction proceedings were initiated.
In addressing McClain's breach of contract claim, the court concluded that Constellation Ohio had fulfilled its obligations by addressing maintenance issues in a timely manner. The court noted, "Appellant did not comply with the rental agreement’s termination and move out procedures when she terminated her lease in late October 2023."
The court also upheld the trial court's findings regarding the security deposit, affirming that Constellation Ohio had provided an itemized statement of deductions, which McClain disputed but did not successfully challenge in court.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal landscape for tenant rights and landlord responsibilities in Ohio, particularly concerning emotional support animals and associated fees. The court's decision reinforces the idea that landlords can impose fees that apply equally to all tenants, regardless of disability status, as long as these fees are disclosed in the lease agreement.
Moving forward, this case sets a precedent for similar disputes in Ohio, potentially impacting how landlords draft lease agreements and how tenants understand their rights regarding service and support animals. It also highlights the importance of clear communication between landlords and tenants regarding lease terms and conditions.
As for next steps, McClain may consider further legal action, although the court's ruling is a significant setback for her claims. There is no indication of related cases pending that could affect this ruling.