The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled against Wael Sharaydeh in a lease dispute involving his smoke shop. The court upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss Sharaydeh's complaint against Litmer Properties, L.L.C. and M.J. Clips, Inc. The ruling affects Sharaydeh's business operations and clarifies the legal boundaries of lease agreements in Ohio.
The case, Sharaydeh v. Litmer Properties, L.L.C., was filed under docket number CA2025-10-121. It centers around a dispute over a sublease agreement that Sharaydeh had with M.J. Clips, which was itself a tenant of Litmer Properties. This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of lease agreements and the conditions under which a declaratory judgment can be sought.
Sharaydeh began operating his smoke shop on property owned by Litmer Properties in Walton, Kentucky, under a sublease agreement in 2022. Disputes arose between him and the landlords over issues such as unpaid rent, unauthorized advertising, and property conditions. On June 6, 2025, the landlords notified Sharaydeh of a default, claiming he materially breached the sublease. Following this, they initiated a forcible entry and detainer action against him in Kentucky.
Instead of responding to the eviction action, Sharaydeh filed a complaint in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas on July 16, 2025. He sought a declaratory judgment asserting that he was not in default and that the landlords had waived any alleged breaches. However, the complaint did not seek clarification on any specific lease terms, focusing instead on factual assertions regarding his compliance with the lease.
The landlords responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that Sharaydeh's complaint failed to state a valid claim. On October 14, 2025, the trial court granted this motion, stating that Sharaydeh's complaint was not justiciable. The court noted that the complaint did not seek to clarify any specific provisions of the lease but rather raised factual questions about liability.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Matthew R. Byrne, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court stated, "Sharaydeh's complaint was not 'justiciable in nature' because it did not seek determinations of construction of either the Master Lease or of the subsequent sublease." The court emphasized that declaratory judgment was inappropriate since it only involved factual assertions rather than legal interpretations.
This ruling has significant implications for Sharaydeh and other tenants involved in lease disputes. It clarifies that a declaratory judgment is only appropriate when there is a real controversy that requires judicial resolution, particularly regarding the interpretation of contractual terms. The court noted that Sharaydeh's situation was already being litigated in Kentucky, which further justified the dismissal of his complaint.
Looking ahead, this decision may influence how similar lease disputes are handled in Ohio. Tenants may need to be more cautious in how they frame their complaints, ensuring that they seek legal interpretations rather than merely asserting factual claims. The ruling also underscores the importance of addressing lease disputes in the jurisdiction specified in the lease agreement.
As of now, it remains unclear whether Sharaydeh will appeal this decision. The court's ruling effectively ends his attempt to seek a declaratory judgment in Ohio, but he may still pursue his claims in Kentucky where the eviction action is pending.