Copley Mini Mart, Inc. v. Copley Properties, LLC, 010919 OHCA9, 28942

Docket Nº:C.A. 28942
Opinion Judge:LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, JUDGE.
Party Name:COPLEY MINI MART, INC. Appellant v. COPLEY PROPERTIES, LLC Appellee
Attorney:JOHN CURTIS ALBERTI, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. STEVEN J. PRUNESKI, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:SCHAFER, P. J. CARR, J. CONCUR.
Case Date:January 09, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2019-Ohio-33

COPLEY MINI MART, INC. Appellant

v.

COPLEY PROPERTIES, LLC Appellee

C.A. No. 28942

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

January 9, 2019

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 16-CVF-07207

JOHN CURTIS ALBERTI, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

STEVEN J. PRUNESKI, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, JUDGE.

{¶1} Appellant, Copley Mini Mart, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the Akron Municipal Court in favor of Appellee, Copley Properties, LLC. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} This case involves a commercial lease of a convenience store. Copley Mini Mart, Inc. ("Tenant") entered into a five-year lease with Copley Properties, LLC ("Landlord") that commenced on November 1, 2011 and terminated on October 31, 2016. The lease contained provisions regarding the term of the lease, the rental amount, utilities, use of the premises, insurance coverage, re-entry upon default, surrender of the premises, and an option to renew.

{¶3} In April 2016, Tenant and Landlord had a discussion regarding renewing the lease. After this conversation, Tenant made improvements to the premises and hired a consultant to conduct a local-option election campaign to sell beer and wine at the store. Tenant sent a written notice of its intent to renew the lease to Landlord on June 23, 2016. A week later, Landlord refused Tenant's request to renew the lease because it was untimely.

{¶4} On October 19, 2016, Landlord sent two letters to Tenant. The first letter notified Tenant that it was in default of the lease due to alleged deficiencies with the insurance coverage it maintained for the premises. The second letter notified Tenant that the lease would expire on October 31, 2016 and requested assurances from Tenant that it would vacate the premises by that date. Tenant refused to vacate the premises.

{¶5} Six weeks prior to the lease expiring, Tenant filed a complaint for declaratory judgment as to the parties' rights and obligations under the lease and the option to renew. Landlord filed a counterclaim also seeking declaratory judgment as to the parties' rights and obligations under the lease and the option to renew, in addition to claims for forcible entry and detainer and money damages. Tenant amended its complaint to add a claim for intentional interference with its business.

{¶6} After conducting discovery, Tenant and Landlord filed summary judgment motions on their claims for declaratory judgment and forcible entry and detainer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Landlord, declaring that Tenant was not in compliance with the lease and was precluded from renewing the lease. The trial court also granted Landlord a judgment for a writ of restitution. The next day Landlord evicted Tenant and repossessed the premises pursuant to the self-help provision in the lease by installing new locks and a new security system at the premises.

{¶7} Tenant timely appeals from this judgment entry, asserting two assignments of error. For ease of analysis, this Court reorders the assignments of error. However, as an initial matter, we address Landlord's motion to dismiss this appeal.

II.

MOTION TO DISMISS

{¶8} Landlord moved to dismiss this appeal as moot because Tenant was no longer in possession of the premises and Tenant failed to obtain a stay of execution. Landlord's requested relief is misplaced because this appeal involves legal disputes regarding two causes of action: declaratory judgment and forcible entry and detainer.

{¶9} When an appeal includes challenges to multiple causes of action, including forcible entry and detainer, and the tenant is no longer in possession of the premises and has failed to obtain a stay, then in that instance, only the assignments of error regarding the forcible entry and detainer are moot, as opposed to the entire...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP