[Cite as DATFT, L.L.C. v. AM Reflections Cleaning Servs. L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-1348.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

DATFT LLC,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

AM REFLECTIONS CLEANING 

SERVICES LLC,

 Defendant-Appellant,

 and

ANGELA TAYLOR, a.k.a. ANGELA

MCDONALD,

 Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-220217

TRIAL NO. 21CV-06295

 O P I N I O N.

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 26, 2023

Yonas and Phillabaum, LLC, Jason Phillabaum and Hope Platzbecker, for DefendantAppellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

KINSLEY, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant AM Reflections Cleaning Services, LLC, (“AM 

Reflections”) appeals from the trial court’s entry granting summary judgment to

plaintiff-appellee DATFT, LLC, on both its claim for breach of lease and on AM 

Reflections’ counterclaim for breach of contract and awarding damages to DATFT in 

the amount of $9,450 plus pre- and post-judgment interest. 

{¶2} In two assignments of error, AM Reflections argues that the grant of 

summary judgment was improper because the parties’ contract was ambiguous and 

because there exist genuine issues of material fact. We find these arguments to be 

without merit and accordingly affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶3} AM Reflections and its sole proprietor Angela Taylor contracted with 

Sharon Square, LLC, to lease premises in a building owned by Sharon Square for a 

three-year period, beginning January 1, 2018. The contract provided that AM 

Reflections would pay $400 per month in rent from January 1, 2018, until June 28, 

2018, and would then pay $450 per month for the remainder of the three-year period. 

AM Reflections and Taylor had a separate agreement with Sharon Square to clean the 

building. They were paid approximately $1,100 per month for these cleaning services, 

and Sharon Square paid for and provided the cleaning supplies. 

{¶4} In September of 2018, Sharon Square sold the building to DATFT and 

assigned AM Reflections’ lease to DATFT. AM Reflections continued to pay rent and 

to clean the building after the sale. The relationship between AM Reflections and 

Taylor and Tom Devitt, the manager of DATFT, was discordant. AM Reflections and 

Taylor were upset that they were not notified of the transfer of the lease from Sharon 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

Square to DATFT, that Devitt failed to respond to multiple requests that they made, 

that Devitt behaved in a manner that was “extremely unprofessional, nasty, and 

belligerent,” and that Devitt continued to comingle the rent and cleaning bills,

subtracting the rent from the cleaning bill, despite requests from AM Reflections and 

Taylor to keep the bills separate. 

{¶5} In March of 2019, AM Reflections and Taylor terminated the lease. On 

April 1, 2019, counsel for AM Reflections and Taylor sent a letter to Devitt 

acknowledging that the lease had been terminated and stating that AM Reflections had 

removed its property from the premises. The letter further stated that DATFT owed 

AM Reflections $450 for improperly taking April’s rent check out of March’s cleaning 

invoice, and that, unless it canceled AM Reflection’s cleaning services immediately, it 

would also owe the full amount of April’s monthly invoice for cleaning services. The 

letter additionally disputed assignment of the lease from Sharon Square to DATFT, 

stating that the parties’ lease provided that an assignment could only be processed 

with both parties’ consent and agreement. On April 8, 2019, Devitt emailed Taylor 

terminating cleaning services.

{¶6} DATFT filed a complaint against AM Reflections and Taylor asserting a 

claim for breach of lease and seeking damages for lost rent, attorney’s fees, and preand post-judgment interest. AM Reflections and Taylor filed a counterclaim against 

DATFT for breach of contract. The counterclaim alleged that Devitt had improperly 

commingled payments for rent and for cleaning services, had failed to pay for cleaning 

services, and had failed to give notice of the transfer of the lease from Sharon Square 

to DATFT. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶7} DATFT moved for summary judgment on both its claim for breach of 

lease and on the counterclaim for breach of contract. Attached to the motion was an 

affidavit from Devitt setting forth the terms of the lease pertaining to the rent owed by 

AM Reflections and Taylor, stating that AM Reflections and Taylor had unilaterally 

terminated the lease and failed to pay rent from April 2019 through December 2020, 

and stating that DATFT had made a good-faith effort to lease the premises after the 

breach, but was unable to do so. 

{¶8} AM Reflections and Taylor filed a memorandum in opposition to 

DATFT’s motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit from Taylor. 

The affidavit stated that Taylor was never informed about the assignment of the lease 

from Sharon Square to DATFT, set forth the terms of the cleaning agreement with 

Sharon Square, and explained how Devitt and DATFT deviated from the cleaning 

agreement by commingling the bills for rent and cleaning services. Taylor also stated 

in the affidavit that Devitt was dismissive of her and that his behavior created a hostile

environment, which she deemed to be a breach of the agreement that she clean the 

building and pay rent accordingly. 

{¶9} The trial court granted DATFT’s motion for summary judgment and 

entered a judgment against AM Reflections in the amount of $9,450 plus pre- and 

post-judgment interest. It issued a separate entry dismissing Taylor without 

prejudice. 

{¶10} AM Reflections now appeals.

Standard of Review

{¶11} We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Collett

v. Sharkey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200446, 2021-Ohio-2823, ¶ 8. “Summary 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

judgment is appropriately granted when there exists no genuine issue of material fact, 

the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, 

and the evidence, when viewed in favor of the nonmoving party, permits only one 

reasonable conclusion that is adverse to that party.” Id., citing State ex rel. Howard 

v. Ferreri, 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 589, 639 N.E.2d 1189 (1994). 

The Lease was not Ambiguous

{¶12} In its first assignment of error, AM Reflections argues that the trial 

court’s grant of summary judgment was in error because the contract was ambiguous, 

creating a genuine issue of material fact. AM Reflections specifically contends that the 

provision in the lease concerning assignment was ambiguous.

{¶13} Section 9 of the parties’ lease, titled “Assignment and Subletting,”

provided that “Tenant may assign or sublet the Premises with the prior written consent 

of Landlord. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.” The lease did not

contain a similar provision concerning assignment by the landlord or requiring the 

landlord to obtain the tenant’s written consent before assigning the lease. Section 16.2 

of the lease, titled “Lease Binding upon Assignees,” further addressed assignment and 

provided that “This Lease and all covenants, provisions and conditions herein 

contained shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, executors, 

administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns, respectively of the 

parties hereto.”

{¶14} A contract will be deemed ambiguous if “its terms cannot be clearly 

determined from a reading of the entire contract or if its terms are susceptible to more 

than one reasonable interpretation.” Murphy Elevator Co. v. 11320 Chester LLC, 

2018-Ohio-1362, 110 N.E.3d 787, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), quoting Kelly Dewatering and 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

Constr. Co. v. R.E. Holland Excavating, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-030019, 2003-

Ohio-5670, ¶ 21. The contract in this case was a lease, which is to be interpreted like 

any other contract. Wal-Mart Realty Co. v. Tri-County Commons Assocs., LLC, 1st 

Dist. Hamilton No. C-160747, 2017-Ohio-9280, ¶ 9. With regard to assigning 

contracts, Ohio law favors the free assignment of contracts in the absence of “clear 

contractual language” prohibiting the assignment. See Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. 

Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 112 Ohio St.3d 482, 2006-Ohio-6551, 861 N.E.2d 121, ¶ 36. 

With respect to leases specifically, a lease is assignable in the absence of a prohibition 

in the lease itself. GMS Mgmt. Co. v. Vliet, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22807, 2006-Ohio515, ¶ 11.

{¶15} As a starting point, to the extent that AM Reflections claims that Sharon 

Square was prohibited from assigning the lease to DATFT, that claim necessarily fails 

because AM Reflections has not—and cannot—point to “clear contractual language” in 

the lease that prohibits the assignment. At most, AM Reflections alleges an ambiguity 

in the contract, but ambiguous terms do not undo the presumption in favor of free 

assignment; only clear ones do. 

{¶16} Moreover, even if an ambiguity were sufficient to prohibit assignment,

we find no ambiguity in the assignment provision of the parties’ lease. The lease 

clearly contemplated assignment by both parties. This is evidenced in Section 16.2, 

which provides that the lease would be binding on assigns “of the parties hereto.” 

Reading Section 9 and Section 16.2 in conjunction, the only reasonable interpretation

of the lease is that the parties intended to require the tenant, and not the landlord, to 

obtain written consent from the other party prior to assigning or subletting the 

premises. There is no other reasonable interpretation of these provisions. See 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

Murphy Elevator Co. at ¶ 17. This result is consistent with Ohio law allowing the free 

assignment of contracts when there is no language in the contract that prohibits a 

party from making an assignment. 

{¶17} Having found no ambiguity in the contract, and no clear prohibition in 

the lease prohibiting its assignment by the landlord, we accordingly overrule the first 

assignment of error. 

Summary Judgment Appropriately Granted

{¶18} In the second assignment of error, AM Reflections argues that the trial

court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment because there exist genuine 

issues of material fact. Other than arguing that the contract was ambiguous, an 

argument that we have considered and rejected, AM Reflections provides no specific 

argument as to what genuine issues of material fact exist. 

{¶19} We first consider the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on 

DATFT’s claim for breach of lease. To succeed on a such a claim, a party must establish 

“(1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach of that contract, and (3) damages resulting 

from that breach.” Blue Ash Auto Body, Inc. v. Grange Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-220165, 2022-Ohio-4599, ¶ 10. 

{¶20} We find that there exists no genuine issue of material act as to any of 

these elements. First, the lease between the parties was indisputably a valid contract, 

and neither party argues otherwise. Second, Devitt’s affidavit established that AM 

Reflections unilaterally terminated the lease and failed to pay rent from April 2019 on. 

Third, Devitt’s affidavit additionally established that he was unable to lease the 

premises following the breach and that DATFT suffered damages in the amount of the 

monthly rent that DATFT should have received from AM Reflections and Taylor. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

8

There was no material dispute as to any of these factors. AM Reflections seemingly 

argues that its termination of the lease was factually justified by Devitt’s alleged rude 

treatment of Taylor. But AM Reflections made no attempt to argue that Devitt’s 

behavior legally justified its breach. We therefore find no error in the trial court’s grant 

of summary judgment to DATFT on its breach-of-lease claim.

{¶21} We now turn to the counterclaim for breach of contract. AM Reflections 

argues two theories of liability under this counterclaim: that DATFT breached the 

lease by failing to give notice that the lease had been assigned, and that DATFT 

breached the alleged cleaning contract by comingling rent payments with cleaning 

payments and by failing to pay for cleaning services. With respect to AM Reflections’

first argument concerning notice of the assignment, AM Reflections has failed to 

present a valid claim for breach of contract under this theory. For one thing, the lease

did not require the party serving as the landlord to either obtain written consent prior 

to assigning the lease or to give notice that the lease was assigned. Moreover, even if 

it had, Sharon Square, and not DATFT, would have been the party to have given notice 

of the assignment, and AM Reflections raises no claims against Sharon Square in this 

action. And AM Reflections does not cite, nor have we found, a statutory provision 

requiring such notice. Finally, we observe that AM Reflections appears to have had 

actual notice of the assignment to DATFT, as it described its dealings with DATFT in 

Taylor’s affidavit.

{¶22} With respect to its second argument or theory of liability, AM 

Reflections took the position below that it had no contract with DATFT. But its entire 

argument concerning cleaning services rests on a theory of breach of contract, rather 

than unjust enrichment or some other quasi-contractual claim. The separate cleaning-
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

9

services agreement, however, was never made a part of the record. The record does 

not indicate whether it was an oral agreement or a written agreement or what the 

specific terms of the agreement were. It is clear from Taylor’s affidavit that the 

agreement was with Sharon Square, and not DATFT. As such, the existence of a 

contract with DATFT for cleaning services has not been established, let alone that

DATFT breached that alleged contract. In the absence of such a contract, the trial 

court did not err in awarding summary judgment to DATFT on AM Reflections’

counterclaim.

{¶23} The second assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the 

trial court is, accordingly, affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.