The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling that favored tenants Jasmine and Charles Petties in a dispute with their landlords, Marvin Johnson and Kimberly Patrick. The court's decision, issued on November 13, 2026, confirmed that the Petties were wrongfully treated during their eviction process and were entitled to damages for their losses.

This case, identified as Petties v. Johnson (2026CA00017), highlights the complexities of landlord-tenant relationships and the legal protections afforded to tenants under Ohio law. It serves as a significant reminder of the rights tenants hold, even if they are not named on a lease.

The Petties lived in a residential property in Stark County, Ohio, under a lease agreement signed by Charles Petties in 2015. Although Jasmine was not officially listed on the lease, she lived at the property with Charles. After the lease expired, they continued to reside there on a month-to-month basis until a dispute arose in 2023 when Johnson decided to sell the property.

In July 2023, Charles informed Johnson that he had found a new place to live and planned to move out by mid-September. However, the two parties never agreed on a specific move-out date. On September 14, Johnson sent a text message to Charles expressing confusion about the move-out timeline and stated that Charles did not have 30 days to vacate the premises.

The following day, Johnson posted a three-day notice on the front door of the property, demanding that the Petties vacate by September 16. On that day, while the Petties were moving their belongings, Johnson placed their items outside, claiming he was trying to prevent others from taking them. This led Jasmine to call the police for assistance.

On April 16, 2024, Jasmine filed a complaint against Johnson and Patrick, alleging several claims, including a violation of Ohio Revised Code 5321.15, trespass, and negligence. The case eventually went to trial, where Jasmine testified that several of her belongings were damaged or missing, totaling an estimated $5,790 in losses.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Petties, awarding them damages and reasonable attorney fees. Johnson and Patrick appealed the decision, arguing that Jasmine should not have been allowed to amend her complaint to add Charles as a plaintiff, that the damages awarded were not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the attorney fees were excessive.

The court ruled on these assignments of error, stating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the amendment to the complaint. The court noted that the amendment did not introduce new claims and was made well in advance of the trial date. The court emphasized that the amendment was in line with the liberal policy of allowing pleadings to be amended when justice requires.

The court stated, "The amendment added no new claim and no new defendant; it added the named lessee as a co-plaintiff on the same claims."

Regarding the damages, the court found that the appellants had forfeited their right to challenge the magistrate's findings by not filing objections during the trial. The court noted that without a transcript of the trial proceedings, it must presume the regularity of the trial court's actions, thus affirming the damages awarded to the Petties.

Finally, the court addressed the issue of attorney fees, ruling that the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding fees that exceeded the amount stipulated in the Petties' contingency fee agreement with their attorney. The court clarified that the statute allows for reasonable attorney fees and that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the fee award.

The court concluded, "The trial court was not required to explain why it did not award fees in the contingency amount."

This ruling has implications for both tenants and landlords in Ohio. It reinforces the idea that tenants, regardless of their official lease status, have rights that are protected under Ohio law. It also emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures during eviction processes, as failure to do so can result in significant legal consequences for landlords.

Going forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving tenant rights and landlord responsibilities. It highlights the need for landlords to adhere to legal protocols when dealing with tenant evictions and the potential repercussions of failing to do so.

As for the appellants, Johnson and Patrick, they may seek further legal avenues to appeal the decision, although details about any potential next steps were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities and legal nuances involved in landlord-tenant disputes.