Rialto on Hurstbourne, L.L.C. v. US LBM Operating Co. 3009, L.L.C.

Headline: Appellate court finds tenant liable for rent after improperly terminating commercial lease.

Citation: 2026 Ohio 1179

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals · Filed: 2026-04-01 · Docket: C-250077

Published

Outcome: Defendant Win

Impact Score: 65/100 — Moderate impact: This case has notable implications for related legal matters.

Legal Topics: commercial-lease-disputes contract-interpretation notice-and-cure-provisions breach-of-contract

Case Summary

This case involves a dispute over a commercial lease agreement between Rialto on Hurstbourne, L.L.C. (landlord) and US LBM Operating Co. 3009, L.L.C. (tenant). The tenant, US LBM, sought to terminate the lease early, citing issues with the property's condition and the landlord's alleged failure to make necessary repairs. The landlord, Rialto, argued that the tenant was in breach of the lease and owed rent. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the tenant, allowing them to terminate the lease. However, the appellate court reviewed the decision and found that the tenant had not properly exercised their right to terminate the lease according to its terms. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding the tenant liable for rent and other obligations under the lease.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Court Syllabus

SUMMARY JUDGMENT — CIV.R. 56 — OHIO PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT — ECONOMIC HARM — BREACH OF CONTRACT — BREACH OF WARRANTY — EXPRESS WARRANTIES — WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY — WARRANTY OF FITNESS — DESIGN DEFECTS — INDEMNITY — ATTORNEY FEES: Because plaintiff-buyer alleged only economic harm in the form of nonphysical property damage, losses in value, cost of replacement, and consequential business harms, its breach-of-warranty claims were not governed by the Ohio Products Liability Act, codified at R.C. 2307.71 through 2307.80.The trial court's summary judgment for defendant-seller on plaintiff-buyer's claims for breach of express warranties of merchantability and suitability for intended purpose was improper where plaintiff-buyer's expert evidence showed that flooring materials delivered by defendant-seller failed to provide noise isolation that came close to the manufacturer's advertised capabilities and fell below generally-accepted housing-code standards, because a reasonable factfinder could determine that the flooring material had failed to conform to the warranties. The trial court's summary judgment for defendant-seller on plaintiff-buyer's claim for breach of an express warranty against defects in design was proper where context indicated that the design-defect warranty covered only defects that rendered the product unsafe, and where plaintiff-buyer had not alleged that the flooring material at issue was not reasonably safe. Defendant-seller was not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff-buyer's breach-of-warranty claims where plaintiff-buyer had introduced evidence that would support a plausible theory of damages, even if plaintiff-buyer did not adequately prove what those damages would be. Plaintiff-buyer would not be entitled to recover attorney fees from defendant-seller under the contract's indemnification provision, in which defendant-seller promised to indemnify plaintiff-buyer for litigation expenses resulting from a breach of warranty, because it was ambiguous whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to permit recovery of litigation expenses incurred in direct actions between the contracting parties, and ambiguous provisions are to be construed against the party that drafted them—in this case, plaintiff-buyer.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

A tenant must strictly comply with the notice and cure provisions in a commercial lease to validly terminate the agreement.
Failure to properly exercise a termination clause does not relieve a tenant of their ongoing obligations under the lease, including rent payments.

Entities and Participants

Parties

Rialto on Hurstbourne, L.L.C. (party)
US LBM Operating Co. 3009, L.L.C. (party)

Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (5)

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

The case was about whether the tenant, US LBM, had properly terminated a commercial lease agreement with the landlord, Rialto, and if they were still obligated to pay rent.

Q: What did the tenant argue?

The tenant argued that they could terminate the lease early due to alleged problems with the property and the landlord's failure to make repairs.

Q: What did the landlord argue?

The landlord argued that the tenant was in breach of the lease and still owed rent.

Q: What was the trial court's decision?

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the tenant, allowing them to terminate the lease.

Q: What was the appellate court's final decision and why?

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding the tenant liable for rent because the tenant did not follow the correct procedure outlined in the lease to terminate the agreement.

Case Details

Case Name	Rialto on Hurstbourne, L.L.C. v. US LBM Operating Co. 3009, L.L.C.
Citation	2026 Ohio 1179
Court	Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Filed	2026-04-01
Docket Number	C-250077
Precedential Status	Published
Outcome	Defendant Win
Impact Score	65 / 100
Legal Topics	commercial-lease-disputes, contract-interpretation, notice-and-cure-provisions, breach-of-contract
Jurisdiction	oh

Related Legal Resources

Ohio Court of Appeals Opinions commercial-lease-disputes contract-interpretation notice-and-cure-provisions breach-of-contract oh Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: commercial-lease-disputes Know Your Rights: contract-interpretation Know Your Rights: notice-and-cure-provisions Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings commercial-lease-disputes Guide contract-interpretation Guide commercial-lease-disputes Topic Hub contract-interpretation Topic Hub notice-and-cure-provisions Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This AI-generated analysis of Rialto on Hurstbourne, L.L.C. v. US LBM Operating Co. 3009, L.L.C. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on commercial-lease-disputes or from the Ohio Court of Appeals:

Aaron J. Moss v. Michaels Management- Affordable LLC
Appellate court reverses lower court ruling in commercial lease dispute, remands for further proceedings

Florida District Court of Appeal · 2026-04-01
Charles Blanchard v. 480 King Street, LLC
Landlord Wins Commercial Lease Dispute; Tenant's Claims Dismissed

South Carolina Supreme Court · 2026-01-21
Willow Haven on 106th St, LLC v. Hari Nagireddy
Landlord Wins Unpaid Rent Case After Tenant Claims Failure to Mitigate

Indiana Supreme Court · 2025-02-19
State v. Goodson
Probable Cause Justifies Warrantless Vehicle Search for Drugs

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
State v. Sanchez
Statements to Police Deemed Voluntary, Conviction Affirmed

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
State v. Castaneda
Ohio Court Affirms Suppression of Evidence from Warrantless Vehicle Search

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
State v. Mitchell
Court suppresses evidence from warrantless vehicle search due to lack of probable cause

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
State v. Thompson
Ohio Court Affirms Warrantless Vehicle Search Based on Probable Cause

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24