They saw the shed. They read the report. They closed anyway
An Ohio property buyer overlooked clear signs of an existing tenant – a jury handed them a $150,000 bill for it.
Here is a real estate deal that went sideways in almost every way imaginable, and the lessons it left behind are worth paying attention to.
In June 2020, DQ Dream Properties, LLC bought a commercial property in Butler County, Ohio. The purchase agreement, signed by Kenneth Roesel on the sellers' side, stated that no tenant rights applied and that the property would be vacant at closing. DQ signed on the dotted line and closed the deal.
There was just one problem. A youth football organization called the Lakota Tomahawks had been leasing a portion of that same property since 2017, under a 20-year lease signed by Kenneth himself.
Their annual rent was $250. They had even built a small equipment shed on the property. And none of it was recorded with the county.
DQ knew the shed was there. Their own inspection report named the Tomahawks as current occupants. Their principals had walked through the property and seen it with their own eyes. An earlier purchase offer from 2019 – which DQ had signed – specifically acknowledged an existing tenant. And yet, the final purchase agreement said the property was clean.
After closing, the Tomahawks stayed put. DQ did not move to remove them right away. Then, in April 2021, the Tomahawks mailed in their annual $250 rent check. DQ rejected it, built a locked fence around the shed, and went to court.
What followed was years of litigation involving breach of contract claims, fraud allegations, and a jury trial. By the end, a jury awarded the Tomahawks $150,000 in damages against DQ for breaching their lease.
On February 23, 2025, Ohio's Twelfth Appellate District largely upheld that outcome. The court confirmed the Tomahawks lease was valid and enforceable, and that DQ – as the new property owner – was bound by it, recorded or not. The $150,000 damages award stood.
The court did pump the brakes on one piece. The trial court had found Kenneth liable for fraud through a pre-trial ruling, and a jury later awarded DQ $150,000 against him in damages. But the appellate court said that question was not so clear-cut.
Given how much DQ already knew – the inspection report, the walkthroughs, the prior purchase offer – it was genuinely debatable whether DQ had actually relied on Kenneth's "no tenants" representation in good faith. That issue, the appellate court said, belongs in front of a jury. Tanya Roesel, who had been cleared of fraud by the trial court, also gets a second look for the same reason.
The attorney fees saga added another layer. The Tomahawks had asked for over $200,000 in legal fees. The trial court awarded them $7,901.50 – less than four percent of what they requested. The appellate court called that unreasonable and sent it back for a proper review.
So, what does this mean for people in the property business? A few things stand out. An unrecorded lease does not mean an unenforceable one. If a tenant is physically on a property, visible and documented, a buyer cannot simply look away and rely on a seller's word that everything is clear.
Due diligence is not just a formality – it is protection. And a purchase agreement clause stating "no tenant rights apply" is not a magic eraser when the evidence says otherwise.
The case is heading back to the trial court, so this one is not over yet. But the core message landed loud and clear on February 23, 2025: what you know matters just as much as what you are told.
