The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld significant penalties against Keith Alexander and his shoe factory for failing to comply with fire safety regulations. The court's decision affects Alexander's property in Lebanon, Ohio, which has been cited for serious fire-code violations, highlighting the importance of building safety compliance.
In a ruling issued on October 5, 2026, the court affirmed a previous order from the Ohio Board of Building Appeals that imposed a one-time civil penalty of $20,000 for the violations, as well as a potential daily penalty of $1,000 for any ongoing noncompliance. This case underscores the legal responsibilities of property owners regarding fire safety and the enforcement powers of local authorities.
Background
Keith Alexander acquired a vacant four-story building, formerly a shoe factory, on December 12, 2012. The property, located at 120 East South Street in Lebanon, Ohio, has been used primarily for storage. By the time Alexander purchased it, the building’s sprinkler system had been decommissioned with prior approval from local fire and building departments, provided the building remained unoccupied.
However, in 2014, the Lebanon fire chief issued a letter stating that Alexander needed to remove any stored materials within 30 days due to the building's mercantile classification, which required an operable fire suppression system. Despite this, Alexander failed to clear the building or repair the sprinkler system over the next decade. In January 2025, a fire safety inspector, Mitchell Conway, reinspected the property and confirmed that violations still existed.
On April 22, 2025, Conway issued a citation to Alexander, detailing two specific fire-code violations related to the disabled sprinkler system. The citation included a $500 penalty for each violation and warned that additional penalties would accrue if the violations were not addressed by the compliance deadline. Alexander did not appeal the citation or take corrective action, prompting the fire division to escalate the matter to the Ohio Board of Building Appeals.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge M. Powell, ruled in favor of the Board's decision, stating, "The Board acted within its authority by reducing the penalty the enforcing agency proposed." The court found that the Board's imposition of a $20,000 penalty was reasonable given the severity and duration of the violations.
The trial court had previously determined that Alexander's liability for the violations had reached $36,000 by the time of the Board hearing, which included both the initial penalties and daily accruing penalties. The Board's decision to reduce this amount to $20,000 was seen as a reasonable exercise of its authority. The court emphasized that the gravity of the violations was substantial, given the building's hazardous conditions.
Additionally, the court addressed Alexander's objections regarding the authority of the Board to impose a $1,000 per day penalty for ongoing violations. The court noted that Alexander had not preserved this argument for appeal, and thus the ruling on the prospective penalty was not considered a plain error.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for property owners in Ohio regarding compliance with fire safety regulations. It reinforces the authority of local fire safety inspectors and the Ohio Board of Building Appeals to enforce fire codes and impose penalties for noncompliance. The decision serves as a reminder that property owners must adhere to safety regulations to prevent hazardous situations.
The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving fire safety compliance, as it clarifies the extent of the Board's authority to modify penalties and the importance of timely appeals by property owners. Failure to comply with safety regulations can lead to substantial financial penalties and legal consequences.
What's Next
While the court's decision is final, Alexander may have limited options for further appeal. The case highlights the importance of compliance with fire safety regulations and the potential consequences of neglecting such responsibilities. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.