2021 Ohio 4259
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Turfco Landscaping leased commercial property from Shenigo starting in 2012; Turfco stored equipment there. In February 2017 Shenigo locked Turfco out and Turfco alleged wrongful lockout, conversion, and related torts.
- Turfco sued; case tried to a magistrate who awarded Turfco judgment (combined with counterclaim resolution) initially totaling $133,259.06; magistrate found lost sales from repeat commercial customers after the lockout.
- Trial court sustained most of the magistrate’s findings but reduced damages because it applied a 40% profit margin (per owner testimony) instead of the magistrate’s 60%, awarding $75,506.04.
- Shenigo appealed arguing the evidence of lost profits was insufficient and against the manifest weight because Turfco relied on self-prepared sales summaries and owner testimony without corroborating documentary proof or causation proof.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but corrected a minor arithmetic error and modified the award to $75,505.88. A dissent argued the lost-profits methodology was speculative and unreliable and would have reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turfco proved lost profits with reasonable certainty | Turfco (via owner Polen) produced 2016 and 2017 customer sales summaries and testified to a ~40% profit margin and loss of repeat commercial accounts after the lockout | Evidence insufficient: summaries are self-prepared, incomplete, unsupported by bank/contract records, and causation is not proven for the sales decline | Majority: Polen competent; summaries corroborate his testimony; lost profits shown with reasonable certainty for affected accounts; award affirmed (minor arithmetic correction) |
| Proper profit margin to apply | Polen testified company profit margin was ~40% and damages should be that percentage of lost sales | Magistrate used 60% incorrectly; defendant argued overall calculations were unreliable | Trial court corrected to 40%; Court of Appeals applied 40% and affirmed the reduced award |
| Whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence (causation and credibility) | Turfco: lockout caused loss of customer trust and specific large accounts (Ramco, HM Miller) | Shenigo: testimony vague; summaries compare dissimilar client samplings; other factors could explain sales changes | Majority: no contradictory evidence from Shenigo; credibility and summaries suffice for preponderance on key accounts; dissent disagreed and would reverse |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency from weight of the evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies sufficiency vs manifest weight in civil cases)
- Gahanna v. Eastgate Properties, 36 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 1988) (lost profits must be shown with reasonable certainty)
- AGF, Inc. v. Great Lakes Heat Treating Co., 51 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (past performance can support prediction of future profits)
- Charles R. Combs Trucking, Inc. v. Internatl. Harvester Co., 12 Ohio St.3d 241 (Ohio 1984) (lost profits need only be reasonable, not exact)
- Kinetico, Inc. v. Independent Ohio Nail Co., 19 Ohio App.3d 26 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (lost-profit claims must be substantiated by calculations based on evidentiary facts)