2012 Ohio 1189
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Midamco owns Mapletown Shopping Center; Broadway Dunham Lanes operates as a bowling alley in the basement under a 1995 lease.
- Sashko purchased the bowling business and assets in 1995, including 18 lanes and related equipment, with the lease term defined to require operation of the premises as a bowling alley.
- Water seepage, sewer backups, and mold damaged the bowling alley structure; the 2005 lease addendum sought to indemnify Midamco for water-seepage claims and to address ongoing water problems.
- In 2009 Sashko ceased operations, dismantled equipment, and Midamco sued for temporary relief, declaratory relief, breach of contract, and damages, seeking specific performance to restore the alley and money damages.
- The trial court ruled Midamco owned certain equipment, ordered Sashko to restore the premises to operability for an 18-lane alley, and awarded past-due rent, cleaning expenses, and attorney fees; the court also awarded attorney fees and allowed a four-and-a-half month post-restoration rent period, all of which were challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy | Midamco argues specific performance is proper to restore the alley. | Sashko contends specific performance is an abuse of discretion given ongoing water/mold issues. | Specific performance was abused; reversed and remanded for money damages instead. |
| Whether Midamco should repair water damage before reinstallation of equipment | Midamco bears responsibility for repairing water damage under the lease. | Remediation should be completed before equipment is reinstalled, not by Sashko. | Remand for damages; court erred by not ordering Midamco to repair before restoration. |
| Whether the award of attorney fees was proper and how pretrial fees should be allocated | Midamco sought attorney fees under the lease; hours should reflect trial necessity. | Many pretrial fees were for issues not prevailing at trial. | Remand for a hearing to determine which pretrial fees relate to proven breaches; award reversed in part. |
| Whether the four-and-a-half month rent period after restoration was proper | Rent during post-restoration period compensates for lost use due to breach. | Such post-restoration rent could double-collect damages. | Addressed via remand; current record sustains reversal of the specific performance remedy and related rent provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gleason v. Gleason, 64 Ohio App.3d 667 (4th Dist.1991) (general equitable considerations for specific performance)
- Sholiton Ind., Inc. v. Wright State Univ., 1996 WL 531587 (—) (recognizes specific performance in commercial leases (non-official reporter in note))
- Roth v. Habansky, 8th Dist. No. 82027, 2003-Ohio-5378 (8th Dist. 2003) (equitable standards for specific performance; abuse of discretion standard)
- Spengler v. Sonnenberg, 88 Ohio St. 192, 102 N.E. 737 (1913) (Ohio Supreme Court 1913) (standard for exercise of equity powers; obligation on court to weigh circumstances)
- Manning v. Hamamey, 1998 WL 57093 (—) (cited for general equity principles (not official reporter))
- Brown v. Spitzer Chevrolet Co., 181 Ohio App.3d 642, 2009-Ohio-1196 (5th Dist.2009) (damages vs. specific performance considerations in leases)
- Sandusky Properties v. Aveni, 15 Ohio St.3d 273, 473 N.E.2d 798 (1984) (Ohio Supreme Court 1984) (recognizes specific performance as remedy in certain real estate/lease contexts)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254, 662 N.E.2d 1 (1996) (Ohio Supreme Court 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review)