A dispute over whether a landlord took sufficient steps to limit financial losses after a commercial tenant broke its lease ended with an appellate court upholding a $68,314.68 damages award against the former tenant and its owner. The ruling confirms that landlords are not required to use extraordinary means to re-rent properties after a breach, as long as their efforts are reasonable.
The appeal was filed by TT419, Inc. and its owner Joseph Naimy in the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals, Lucas County, challenging a judgment from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas entered in favor of JOGA Holdings Corp. on March 24, 2026.
According to court documents, TT419 entered into a commercial lease agreement with JOGA on January 28, 2021, for retail space at 3121 Bancroft Street in Toledo, Ohio. The lease was set for five years starting March 1, 2021. On the same day as signing the lease, Naimy executed an Unconditional Lease Guaranty making him personally liable for all obligations under the agreement. The monthly rent was set at $2,537.50 with an equal amount paid as a security deposit.
JOGA agreed to prepare the property with certain improvements up to an allowance of $135,000. However, delays caused by Covid-19 pushed back construction work beyond the original start date. As costs rose above the improvement allowance due to additional requests from TT419 and Naimy—totaling $169,270.79—JOGA asked them to cover expenses exceeding the allowance.
On August 3, 2021, counsel for TT419 notified JOGA that they were terminating the lease effective immediately despite JOGA having already paid over $90,000 toward property buildout and being obligated for a realtor fee of $7,612.50 for securing TT419 as tenants.
Following this breach of contract by TT419 and Naimy’s guarantee agreement default, JOGA placed an “easily noticeable” For Rent sign in the window and attempted to find new tenants through word-of-mouth marketing within their business network and discussions with realtors and customers at an adjacent restaurant operated by another tenant. Testimony indicated that renting out this particular space was difficult due to lack of parking and prior condition issues.
JOGA did not renew its listing agreement with Miller Diversified Realty because it had previously taken over a year for them to secure TT419 as tenants and because they still owed realtor fees despite TT419’s early departure.
Unable to find another renter by December 2022 using these methods—which included signage and personal outreach—JOGA arranged for Barrington Operating Group (with common ownership) to take over leasing of the space as event space for Stubborn Brother Pizza restaurant next door beginning in early 2023.
At trial on May 8, 2025, testimony from Gabrielle Mancy (a JOGA owner) described these mitigation efforts; no contrary evidence was presented by appellants regarding reasonableness of these actions.
The trial court found that JOGA’s attempts were reasonable under Ohio law requiring landlords only make reasonable—not extraordinary—efforts following tenant default: “Their efforts… must be reasonable… If a landlord acts reasonably… former tenant will be liable for rent up until landlord finds new tenant or expiration of lease.”
TT419 appealed only part of the damages award—the portion representing lost rent over 21 months ($53,286.50)—arguing that more should have been done such as hiring brokers or advertising online or in newspapers.
However, both courts concluded there is no legal requirement specifying which methods must be used so long as overall effort is reasonable: “The method employed is not controlling,” according to cited precedent.
The appellate panel found no error in awarding damages covering April 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022—the period before Barrington Operating Group took over—and affirmed that appellants failed their burden to prove inadequate mitigation: “Appellants have failed to show that JOGA failed to make reasonable efforts.”
As a result of this decision affirming judgment against them—including responsibility for costs of appeal—TT419 and Naimy remain liable for total damages awarded at trial.
Attorneys involved include Julie A. Douglas and Erick G. Chappell representing appellee JOGA Holdings Corp., and Thomas D. Pigott representing appellant TT419 Inc.; judges named in this decision are Thomas J. Osowik (P.J.), Myron C. Duhart (J.), and Charles E. Sulek (J.). The case identification numbers are Court of Appeals No. L-25-00135 and Trial Court No. CI10202102934.
Source: 2026Ohio1022_TT149_Inc_v_JOGA_Holdings_Corp_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
