Savoy Hospitality, LLC v. 5839 Monroe Street Associates, LLC, 112712 OHSCCP, CI-2011-02783
|Opinion Judge:||John P. O'Donnell, J|
|Party Name:||SAVOY HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a Melting Pot Restaurant, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 5839 MONROE STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC. d/b/a Monroe Associates, LLC, Defendant.|
|Attorney:||Amy L. Butler, Esq., Anthony J. Calamunci, Esq., Roetzel & Andress LPA Attorneys for the plaintiffs Erik G. Chappell, Esq., Julie A. Douglas, Esq., Lyden Liebenthal & Chappell Attorneys for the defendant|
|Case Date:||November 27, 2013|
|Court:||Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Lucas|
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a lawsuit by a commercial tenant, 1 a restaurant, and the personal guarantors of the lease, against the landlord alleging breach of contract. The defendant landlord counterclaimed for breach of contract. Ultimately, the parties reached a written settlement agreement that the court enforced by an entry journalized May 18, 2012. That entry required the plaintiffs to complete certain work and the defendant to then return the plaintiffs' security deposit.
All of the work is now finished and the plaintiffs have filed a motion to enforce the court's order of May 18 seeking a separate order requiring the return of the security deposit.2 The defendant has opposed that motion and filed its own motion for the recovery of attorney's fees. The plaintiffs, in turn, opposed the defendant's motion for attorney's fees and filed their own motion for attorney's fees.
The court held a hearing on the three pending motions on November 14, 2012 and this entry follows.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
A detailed statement of facts is included in the court's May 18 entry. By way of summary, each party alleged that the other breached the lease. A settlement agreement was signed on October 25, 2011. On January 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the defendant was treating it as void by resuming the prosecution of its counterclaims. The May 18 entry enforced the settlement agreement by ordering the plaintiffs to replace light switches and fixtures, remove remaining pieces of a walk-in refrigerator, replace awnings and a speaker/stereo system, and clean the premises.
The May 18 entry also ordered the defendant to return the plaintiffs security deposit once the plaintiff performed its obligations under the order. The parties agreed at the November 14 hearing that all of the plaintiffs' work has been done and that the security deposit has not been returned. The evidence admitted at the hearing included testimony from plaintiffs' counsel Anthony Calamunci, plaintiffs' exhibits 1 through 4, and all of the defendant's exhibits attached to Monroe's motion for attorney's fees.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
By its motion for attorney's fees, Monroe argues that Savoy's post-settlement agreement conduct - namely, "rather than cooperate, the [plaintiff] forced [Monroe] to expend substantial effort and attorney fees to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP