The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision allowing New Sunrise Properties, Inc. to evict Lillian Robertson for not completing the necessary paperwork to maintain her housing subsidy. The ruling, issued on June 15, 2026, affects Robertson, who had been receiving assistance through the federally funded Shelter Care Plus Program for chronically homeless individuals. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of tenants in federally subsidized housing programs.
New Sunrise Properties owns and manages apartment units that provide housing for tenants receiving assistance under the Shelter Plus program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program is designed to help individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled. New Sunrise receives funding from the Lorain County Mental Health and Recovery Services Board (MHARS Board) to subsidize rent for eligible tenants.
Lillian Robertson qualified for the Shelter Plus program and signed a one-year lease with New Sunrise on November 3, 2020. As part of her lease, she was required to apply for recertification annually to continue receiving the subsidy. Robertson successfully recertified in October 2021 but faced challenges in the following year. New Sunrise sent her several notices about the recertification process in 2022, but Robertson failed to complete the necessary steps before the deadline.
According to court documents, New Sunrise sent Robertson written recertification notices on July 6, August 11, and September 30, 2022. Although she acknowledged receiving the August and September notices, she claimed she did not receive the July notice. Robertson attempted to recertify but stated she could not find transportation to the required meeting. The final notice indicated that her subsidy would expire on October 31, 2022, if she did not cooperate with the recertification process. After failing to respond, Robertson lost her subsidy and was informed she would be responsible for the full market rent of $732 starting November 1, 2022.
New Sunrise initiated eviction proceedings against Robertson in December 2022 for non-payment of rent. After dismissing the initial eviction action, New Sunrise served Robertson with a termination notice for non-payment on April 14, 2023, which she did not respond to. The case eventually moved to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, where New Sunrise sought summary judgment against Robertson.
The court ruled in favor of New Sunrise, stating that Robertson had failed to comply with the recertification requirements and had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims against the eviction. Judge Scott Stevenson stated in the court's opinion, "New Sunrise complied with all notice requirements under the parties’ lease," and emphasized that Robertson's failure to recertify was the primary reason for the termination of her subsidy.
Robertson appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that New Sunrise had not provided due process before commencing the eviction. However, the appellate court found no merit in her arguments, affirming the lower court's ruling. The court stated, "There is no evidence in the record that New Sunrise took action to terminate Ms. Robertson’s Shelter Plus subsidy. The undisputed evidence is that Ms. Robertson knew that she had to annually recertify her subsidy and that she failed to do so."
This ruling clarifies the responsibilities of tenants in federally funded housing programs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to recertification requirements. It also highlights the obligations of landlords to provide proper notice and follow due process when terminating subsidies or initiating eviction proceedings.
Moving forward, this decision may impact other tenants in similar situations, reinforcing the necessity for timely communication and compliance with program requirements. It also serves as a reminder that failure to meet these obligations can result in significant consequences, including loss of housing and eviction.
As for what’s next, Robertson may seek further appeal options, although details regarding any pending related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future disputes involving subsidized housing and tenant rights.