[Cite as Toelke v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-5032.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
CONSTANCE TOELKE, : APPEAL NO. C-250005 TRIAL NO. A-2304565 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
CURTIS DEANDRA WILLIAMS, : JUDGMENT ENTRY
and :
LEKALA STARR, :
Defendants-Appellants. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 11/5/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Toelke v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-5032.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
CONSTANCE TOELKE, : APPEAL NO. C-250005 TRIAL NO. A-2304565 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CURTIS DEANDRA WILLIAMS, : OPINION
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 5, 2025
Cors & Bassett, LLC, and Michael L. Gay, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Jackson Law Office, LLC, and Kory A. Jackson, for Defendants-Appellants. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
NESTOR, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellee Constance Toelke agreed to lease her home to
defendants-appellants Curtis Williams and Lekala Starr. In exchange, Toelke would
receive rental payments and stay in the couple’s apartment. The couple, Starr and
Williams, did not make any rental payments to Toelke. Despite this, the parties
entered into a land contract for the sale of Toelke’s house after Starr and Williams had
resided there for six months. Under the land contract, Starr and Williams were to pay
$10,000 to Toelke at the time of execution and $540 every month until the contract
price was satisfied. They failed to do so. Starr and Williams lived there for over four
years before Toelke brought a breach of contract claim to evict them. The trial court
found in Toelke’s favor and evicted Starr and Williams. Starr and Williams now
appeal, asserting one assignment of error.
{¶2} We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that Starr and Williams
breached the land contract. We therefore overrule their assignment of error.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} In March of 2019, Toelke rented her house to Starr and Williams for
$1,200 a month. The idea behind the swap was that the rental payments from Starr
and Williams would allow Toelke to make the $540 monthly mortgage payment on her
house while the couple lived there. While she lived in their apartment, she was to pay
$400 in rent to Starr and Williams. There is conflicting testimony as to what
payments, if any, Starr and Williams made under the lease agreement.
{¶4} After the parties swapped homes, Starr and Williams decided to buy the
house from Toelke. In the fall of 2019, Williams created a land contract using an online
legal service. Under the contract, Starr and Williams were to pay $89,000 for the
house, which included “$10,000 upon execution of this Agreement.” After that, Starr
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
and Williams were to pay “monthly installments of $540.” In the event of the couple’s
default, the land contract provided Toelke with the ability to terminate the agreement,
have Starr and Williams vacate the property, and retain any payments.
{¶5} Starr and Williams never paid Toelke the $10,000 due upon execution.
Williams testified that he initially paid Toelke $540 monthly as required by the
agreement. However, after Toelke failed to use that money to pay the mortgage,
Williams stopped paying Toelke and instead paid the mortgage directly.
{¶6} In 2021, Williams created a deed using RocketLawyer.com. The deed
contained an affidavit signed by Toelke, which stated she sold her home to Starr and
Williams “for assumption of the property loan with Cenlar and 15,000.” Williams
never assumed the mortgage, but Toelke did provide him with information to pay the
mortgage.
{¶7} In the fall of 2023, Toelke filed a complaint in the court of common pleas
asking the court to find that Starr and Williams had defaulted under the terms of the
land contract. Toelke alleged that because of the default, Starr and Williams must
vacate the property as required by contract.
{¶8} In October of 2024 the case proceeded to a bench trial. Toelke’s counsel
asked Williams if he paid Toelke the initial $10,000 payment. He responded that he
paid Toelke in multiple, different ways including agreeing to move, allowing her to
stay in his home, paying her water bill, paying for storage, and so on. He explained
that he did not give her $10,000, but “it was other ways that [he] took care of these
payments.” The court asked Williams to produce receipts or checks to prove his
payments, but Williams stated, “because her account was in the negative . . . she always
wanted it in cash.”
{¶9} The trial court found that the couple did not make any rental payments
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
under the lease agreement. Additionally, the court found that despite the land
contract not complying with certain statutory provisions, it was enforceable. Further,
the court found that Starr and Williams never paid Toelke the $10,000 down payment
required by the land contract. Ultimately, the judge found Starr and Williams
breached the contract by failing to pay $10,000 to Toelke. The trial court ordered the
couple to vacate the house by December 31, 2024. Starr and Williams now appeal,
asserting one assignment of error.
II. Analysis
{¶10} In their sole assignment of error, Starr and Williams argue that the trial
court’s decision ordering them to vacate the property was against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Where an appellant challenges the trial court’s factual findings
following a trial, appellate courts review the trial court’s decision under a manifest-
weight standard of review. Qiming He v. Half Price Heating & Air, 2021-Ohio-1599,
¶ 6 (1st Dist.), citing Hyde Park Circle, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati, 2016-Ohio-3130, ¶ 15 (1st
Dist.). The ultimate question in a manifest-weight analysis is whether, after weighing
all evidence and assessing the credibility of evidence and witnesses, the trial court
clearly lost its way. Id. at ¶ 7, citing William Powell Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 2020-
Ohio-5325, ¶ 47 (1st Dist.). In assessing whether a trial court’s judgment is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, we consider whether the greater amount of credible
evidence supported the judgment, and whether the plaintiff met its burden of
persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. Hyde Park Circle at ¶ 15.
{¶11} In reviewing a civil case under the manifest-weight standard of review,
we presume the correctness of a trial court’s findings of fact, given that the trial court
had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. Qiming He
at ¶ 7.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Toelke v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-5032.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
CONSTANCE TOELKE, : APPEAL NO. C-250005 TRIAL NO. A-2304565 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
CURTIS DEANDRA WILLIAMS, : JUDGMENT ENTRY
and :
LEKALA STARR, :
Defendants-Appellants. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 11/5/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Toelke v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-5032.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
CONSTANCE TOELKE, : APPEAL NO. C-250005 TRIAL NO. A-2304565 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CURTIS DEANDRA WILLIAMS, : OPINION
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 5, 2025
Cors & Bassett, LLC, and Michael L. Gay, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Jackson Law Office, LLC, and Kory A. Jackson, for Defendants-Appellants. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
NESTOR, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellee Constance Toelke agreed to lease her home to
defendants-appellants Curtis Williams and Lekala Starr. In exchange, Toelke would
receive rental payments and stay in the couple’s apartment. The couple, Starr and
Williams, did not make any rental payments to Toelke. Despite this, the parties
entered into a land contract for the sale of Toelke’s house after Starr and Williams had
resided there for six months. Under the land contract, Starr and Williams were to pay
$10,000 to Toelke at the time of execution and $540 every month until the contract
price was satisfied. They failed to do so. Starr and Williams lived there for over four
years before Toelke brought a breach of contract claim to evict them. The trial court
found in Toelke’s favor and evicted Starr and Williams. Starr and Williams now
appeal, asserting one assignment of error.
{¶2} We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that Starr and Williams
breached the land contract. We therefore overrule their assignment of error.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} In March of 2019, Toelke rented her house to Starr and Williams for
$1,200 a month. The idea behind the swap was that the rental payments from Starr
and Williams would allow Toelke to make the $540 monthly mortgage payment on her
house while the couple lived there. While she lived in their apartment, she was to pay
$400 in rent to Starr and Williams. There is conflicting testimony as to what
payments, if any, Starr and Williams made under the lease agreement.
{¶4} After the parties swapped homes, Starr and Williams decided to buy the
house from Toelke. In the fall of 2019, Williams created a land contract using an online
legal service. Under the contract, Starr and Williams were to pay $89,000 for the
house, which included “$10,000 upon execution of this Agreement.” After that, Starr
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
and Williams were to pay “monthly installments of $540.” In the event of the couple’s
default, the land contract provided Toelke with the ability to terminate the agreement,
have Starr and Williams vacate the property, and retain any payments.
{¶5} Starr and Williams never paid Toelke the $10,000 due upon execution.
Williams testified that he initially paid Toelke $540 monthly as required by the
agreement. However, after Toelke failed to use that money to pay the mortgage,
Williams stopped paying Toelke and instead paid the mortgage directly.
{¶6} In 2021, Williams created a deed using RocketLawyer.com. The deed
contained an affidavit signed by Toelke, which stated she sold her home to Starr and
Williams “for assumption of the property loan with Cenlar and 15,000.” Williams
never assumed the mortgage, but Toelke did provide him with information to pay the
mortgage.
{¶7} In the fall of 2023, Toelke filed a complaint in the court of common pleas
asking the court to find that Starr and Williams had defaulted under the terms of the
land contract. Toelke alleged that because of the default, Starr and Williams must
vacate the property as required by contract.
{¶8} In October of 2024 the case proceeded to a bench trial. Toelke’s counsel
asked Williams if he paid Toelke the initial $10,000 payment. He responded that he
paid Toelke in multiple, different ways including agreeing to move, allowing her to
stay in his home, paying her water bill, paying for storage, and so on. He explained
that he did not give her $10,000, but “it was other ways that [he] took care of these
payments.” The court asked Williams to produce receipts or checks to prove his
payments, but Williams stated, “because her account was in the negative . . . she always
wanted it in cash.”
{¶9} The trial court found that the couple did not make any rental payments
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
under the lease agreement. Additionally, the court found that despite the land
contract not complying with certain statutory provisions, it was enforceable. Further,
the court found that Starr and Williams never paid Toelke the $10,000 down payment
required by the land contract. Ultimately, the judge found Starr and Williams
breached the contract by failing to pay $10,000 to Toelke. The trial court ordered the
couple to vacate the house by December 31, 2024. Starr and Williams now appeal,
asserting one assignment of error.
II. Analysis
{¶10} In their sole assignment of error, Starr and Williams argue that the trial
court’s decision ordering them to vacate the property was against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Where an appellant challenges the trial court’s factual findings
following a trial, appellate courts review the trial court’s decision under a manifest-
weight standard of review. Qiming He v. Half Price Heating & Air, 2021-Ohio-1599,
¶ 6 (1st Dist.), citing Hyde Park Circle, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati, 2016-Ohio-3130, ¶ 15 (1st
Dist.). The ultimate question in a manifest-weight analysis is whether, after weighing
all evidence and assessing the credibility of evidence and witnesses, the trial court
clearly lost its way. Id. at ¶ 7, citing William Powell Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 2020-
Ohio-5325, ¶ 47 (1st Dist.). In assessing whether a trial court’s judgment is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, we consider whether the greater amount of credible
evidence supported the judgment, and whether the plaintiff met its burden of
persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. Hyde Park Circle at ¶ 15.
{¶11} In reviewing a civil case under the manifest-weight standard of review,
we presume the correctness of a trial court’s findings of fact, given that the trial court
had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. Qiming He
at ¶ 7. Moreover, in this posture, “every reasonable intendment and every reasonable
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts.” Eastley
v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio
St.3d 77, 80 (1984). Where the evidence is capable of more than one interpretation, a
reviewing court applying manifest-weight review to a civil judgment must apply the
interpretation that is consistent with the verdict and the judgment. Id.
{¶12} For Toelke to succeed on her breach of contract claim, she must have
demonstrated “the existence of a contract, performance by [her], a breach by the
defendant[s], and resulting damages.” Huttenbauer Land Co., LLC v. Harley Riley,
Ltd., 2012-Ohio-4585, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.).
{¶13} All parties agree that the land contract exists and is enforceable.
Though the court found the contract to be statutorily deficient, “the court nevertheless
[found] that the parties entered into a contract for the sale of the subject property.”
Toelke upheld her side of the agreement by allowing Starr and Williams to live in her
house. Starr and Williams argue that they paid adequate consideration because they
provided Toelke with food, they made improvements to the property, and they made
payments on the property. However, during trial, the court requested Starr and
Williams produce receipts of any payments, and the only evidence of payment
produced was an unsigned check made out to Toelke for $900. Further, Williams
testified that the couple did not pay $10,000 after closing as required by the
agreement. In light of the evidence presented at trial, we cannot say that the trial
court’s findings are not supported in the record. Because they did not pay the
$10,000, Starr and Williams breached the contract. Toelke persuasively met each
element of her claim.
{¶14} As such, the trial court’s judgment was not contrary to the manifest
weight of the evidence. We overrule the defendants-appellants’ assignment of error.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
III. Conclusion
{¶15} Because we overrule the defendants-appellants’ assignment of error, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.