The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a jury verdict in a breach of contract case involving Slocum Maintenance Incorporated (SMI) and 400 Washington 44024, L.L.C., ordering a new trial on damages. The court found that the original jury award of $65,000 was not supported by sufficient evidence, particularly regarding the amount claimed for uncompleted work. This ruling affects both parties, as it requires a reevaluation of the damages awarded in the initial trial.
The case, filed under docket number 2025-G-0042, arose from a contract dispute between SMI and 400 Washington 44024, L.L.C. The parties entered into a contract on July 1, 2022, for renovations on a property located at 400 Washington Street in Chardon, Ohio. SMI, owned by Derin Slocum, was to provide materials and labor for the renovation, with a total contract value of $385,496. However, the relationship soured, leading to SMI filing a complaint for breach of contract in August 2023, seeking damages of $80,500.
In response, 400 Washington 44024, L.L.C. and its representative, Greg Vilk, filed counterclaims against SMI, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, slander of title, and tortious interference with business relationships. The case proceeded to trial in October 2025, where the jury found the defendants liable for breach of contract and awarded damages to SMI.
During the trial, Slocum testified about the work completed and the delays encountered. He indicated that while SMI had completed significant portions of the project, there were delays caused by factors such as city approvals and additional work requested by Vilk. The jury ultimately awarded SMI $65,000, but the defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not granting their motion for a directed verdict and that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Judge John J. Eklund, writing for the court, ruled that while there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of liability, the damages awarded were not adequately supported. The court stated, "the damages judgment of $65,000.00 was based, at least in part, on speculative damages and was therefore against the manifest weight of the evidence." The court found that Slocum did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the claimed $50,000 for Phase 3 of the project, which was never started.
The ruling emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in establishing damages in breach of contract cases. The court noted that Slocum's testimony did not adequately demonstrate what the costs for completing Phase 3 would have been, which is essential for determining damages. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial focused solely on the issue of damages.
This decision has significant implications for both parties. For SMI, it means they must prepare for another trial to prove the extent of their damages. For 400 Washington 44024, L.L.C., it provides an opportunity to contest the damages claimed by SMI more thoroughly. The ruling also underscores the necessity for plaintiffs in contract disputes to present clear and compelling evidence of damages to support their claims.
Looking ahead, the case will return to the lower court for a new trial on damages, as the issue of liability has already been resolved in favor of SMI. It remains to be seen how this new trial will unfold and what evidence will be presented regarding the damages incurred by SMI.