The Ohio Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal from KD Franchises-Bexley LLC concerning a forcible entry and detainer (FED) hearing. The court ruled that the appeal was not from a final, appealable order, which affects the ongoing legal battle between the landlord and the franchisee. This decision could have significant implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.
In this case, Bexley Gateway Plaza, Ltd. filed a complaint against KD Franchises-Bexley LLC on October 15, 2025. The landlord claimed that the franchisee had failed to pay approximately $40,000 in rent and late fees for the premises located at 2156 Main Street, Bexley. The dispute arose from a commercial lease agreement between the two parties, leading to the landlord seeking immediate possession of the property.
The situation escalated when KD Franchises-Bexley filed a motion to stay the FED hearing scheduled for December 15, 2025. The franchisee argued that D’Juan Armstead, the guarantor of the lease and sole member of the company, was a servicemember protected under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). This act provides certain legal protections to military members, including the ability to postpone legal proceedings.
Bexley Gateway Plaza opposed the motion, stating that the SCRA did not apply because they were not seeking monetary damages or access to Armstead's assets; they only wanted to regain possession of the property. The trial court ultimately denied KD Franchises-Bexley’s motion to stay the hearing on December 15, 2025, stating that Armstead was neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in the case.
After the denial, KD Franchises-Bexley filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. The franchisee then filed a notice of appeal regarding the trial court's ruling. However, the court addressed whether the order was final and appealable, which is a crucial aspect of appellate jurisdiction.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Leland, reviewed the case and determined that the order denying the motion to stay was not a final appealable order. According to Ohio law, an appellate court can only review final orders. The court noted, "The trial court's December 15, 2025 order denying appellant's motion to stay the FED hearing did not grant or deny possession of the property."
The ruling emphasized that the denial of a stay does not constitute a denial of a provisional remedy and is not considered a separate proceeding. Therefore, the court concluded that the order did not affect a substantial right or prevent a judgment, which are necessary criteria for an appealable order under Ohio law.
As a result, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that KD Franchises-Bexley could still challenge the trial court's decision after a final judgment on possession was made. This means that the franchisee retains the right to appeal later, should the court rule against them in the ongoing proceedings.
The implications of this ruling are significant for both parties involved. For Bexley Gateway Plaza, the dismissal allows them to proceed with the FED hearing without further delays from appeals. For KD Franchises-Bexley, the ruling means they must continue with the current legal proceedings while holding the option to appeal later.
This case highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding appeals, especially in landlord-tenant disputes. The ruling clarifies that not all orders in such cases are immediately appealable, emphasizing the need for parties to be aware of their rights and the legal processes involved.
Looking ahead, KD Franchises-Bexley may still pursue its legal options following the trial court's final judgment. If the court rules in favor of Bexley Gateway Plaza, the franchisee could appeal at that time, potentially raising the same arguments regarding the SCRA protections. This ongoing case will continue to be watched closely as it unfolds, with potential ramifications for similar disputes in Ohio and beyond.