{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:c22caae6f4fc12530451727e82674dd5adde9340e496d1aac2315895133e6a5c","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723","para_724","para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737","para_738","para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742","para_743","para_744","para_745","para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749","para_750","para_751","para_752","para_753","para_754","para_755","para_756","para_757","para_758","para_759","para_760","para_761","para_762","para_763","para_764","para_765","para_766","para_767","para_768","para_769","para_770","para_771","para_772","para_773","para_774","para_775","para_776","para_777","para_778","para_779","para_780","para_781","para_782","para_783","para_784","para_785","para_786","para_787","para_788","para_789","para_790","para_791","para_792","para_793","para_794","para_795","para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803","para_804","para_805","para_806","para_807","para_808","para_809","para_810","para_811","para_812","para_813","para_814","para_815","para_816","para_817","para_818","para_819","para_820","para_821","para_822","para_823","para_824","para_825","para_826","para_827","para_828","para_829","para_830","para_831","para_832","para_833","para_834","para_835","para_836","para_837","para_838","para_839"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2811.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"STARK COUNTY, OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"ANGELA CETORELLI,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellee","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"-vs-","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"DUELL ACTION BUILDERS LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellants","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Case No. 2025CA00130","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Opinion And Judgment Entry","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Pleas, Case No. 2023CV00791","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Judgment: Affirmed","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Date of Judgment Entry: July 22, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"APPEARANCES: JACK MORRISON, JR. and JEANANNE M. WICKHAM, for","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee; ROBERT E. SOLES, JR. and ROBERT E. SOLES, III and KARA M.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"DODSON, for Defendants-Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Montgomery, J.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"{¶1} Defendants-Appellants, Duell Action Builders, LLC, and Karl Jay Duell, IV,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"appeal from the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas awarding Plaintiff,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Angela Cetorelli, treble damages, attorney fees, and costs in the amount of $123,218.50. For","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"the reasons below, we AFFIRM.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"STATEMENT OF FACTS","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"{¶2} This appeal involves a contract entered into between Plaintiff'-Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Angela Cetorelli (“Cetorelli”), and Defendants-Appellants, Duell Action Builders, LLC","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(“Duell Action Builders”) and Karl Jay Duell, IV (“Duell”), individually.1 Cetorelli is the","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"homeowner of the property at issue, and resided there with her husband, who was at time of","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"these events suffering from dementia and cancer and has since passed away. Duell is the sole","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"owner and sole member of Duell Action Builders and has a home office that is not open to","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"the public. Duell Action Builders engages in residential and commercial construction","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"projects, including roofing, gutters, siding, additions, pole barns, as well as interior and","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"exterior work. Duell Action Builders is listed on the Contract (see Cetorelli’s Trial Exhibit 1,","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"the “Contract”) to provide home renovation and roofing services. Duell Action Builders does","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"not have any employees, nor has it ever had any employees.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"{¶3} In March 2022, Cetorelli needed some interior work done on her home and","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"was actively looking online for a contractor. Cetorelli searched the well-known “Angi’s List”","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"for a contractor to perform painting and plaster/drywall repair in her home and located Duell","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Action Builders. Owner Duell visited Cetorelli’s home as a representative of the company to","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"provide a proper estimate for the requested work. While Duell was at the home, he told","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Cetorelli her roof needed work and asked if he could go up and inspect it. Cetorelli allowed","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Duell to look at the roof. Duell told Cetorelli her roof needed to be fixed/replaced. While","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"promoting his company for the roof work, Duell told her there would be a five-year warranty","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"for workmanship, which Duell and Duell Action Builders offer on most of their jobs. They","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"also discussed replacing the skylights. At no point did Duell inform Cetorelli that his","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"company had no employees and that the job would be performed by subcontractors.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"1 At times throughout this Decision, when appropriate, we will refer to Duell Action Builders and Karl","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Jay Duell as Appellant or Appellants in addition to Duell and/or Duell Action Builders.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"{¶4} The total estimate included removal of the prior roof, installation of a new","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"shingle roof, installation of a rolled roof on a flatter pitch, replacement of “rotted” plywood,","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"delivery of the material to the site, dump and waste, removal of existing skylights and","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"installation of new skylights with flashing, and installation of new gutters and gutter guards.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"Duell later prepared the Contract reflecting the above items, but there was no mention of a","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"five-year warranty in the Contract and there was no three-day cancellation notice. Regarding","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"the warranty, Duell testified that he decided to exclude the five-year warranty from the","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Contract because he believed Cetorelli was “argumentative” and “would be a problem down","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"the road.” Duell also stated he did not tell Cetorelli that he excluded the warranty until after","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"she filed the lawsuit. On March 9, 2022, Cetorelli signed the Contract with Appellants at her","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"residence and paid a deposit of $10,140.00.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"{¶5} Duell subsequently hired unidentified subcontractors to perform the work on","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Cetorelli’s roof and gutters. Duell testified he had no recollection of their identities. When","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"testifying at trial, Duell had no details about who his subcontractors were, did not know the","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"company they worked for, and did not have a business address. Prior to completing the roof","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"and gutter job, Duell came back to Cetorelli and requested that she pay the remaining balance.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"Cetorelli informed Duell that she was unhappy with the work on the roof but Duell assured","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"her that he would handle it. Despite this, on March 21, 2022, Cetorelli paid the remaining","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"balance of $5,210.00, upon completion.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"{¶6} Appellants provided a “final invoice” dated May 16, 2022, to Cetorelli, with a","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"total of $15,350.00, matching the amount that Cetorelli had paid. The Final Invoice, like the","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Contract, included identical provisions for the removal of all shingles down to decking, new","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"metal roof boots, new flashing, and the replacement of rotted plywood, but removed the","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"installation of skylights and flashing. Duell testified he was unable to find the skylights for the","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"replacement. Migal Picone testified he told Cetorelli that the skylights did not need replaced","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"so she agreed not to replace them.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"{¶7} After completion, Cetorelli again contacted Duell regarding issues with the new","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"roof. Cetorelli reached out to Duell multiple times before he finally responded. When","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Cetorelli spoke to Duell, he was argumentative. Duell eventually came back out to Cetorelli's","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"residence to check the work, where Duell admitted he could see areas of the roof that were","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"wavy, with wavy shingles, and he disapproved of the shadow ridge cap. Duell and Picone,","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Duell’s project manager, then replaced one sheet of plywood but made no further repairs.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Duell told Cetorelli he confronted the roofing crew and terminated them. At no time did","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"anyone inspect the wood decking via Cetorelli's attic. Duell admitted that he also did not go","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"into the attic to inspect the wood decking. Picone testified that there were shingles on the","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"roof that would take too much effort to get off, so the shingles were left on, and plywood was","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"placed on top of it.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"{¶8} Cetorelli continued to contact Duell because of complaints she was having with","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"the roof and gutters, at times the gutters were pouring water down the side of her home. Due","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"to issues with Cetorelli’s husband and his decline in health, Cetorelli’s niece, Carbone,","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"attempted to discuss the matter with Duell on several occasions. Carbone stated that Duell","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"was “[h]ostile always, argumentative. He would start off - - he would call me back and start","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"off fine. We would try and talk, and then he would turn argumentative and hostile again. So","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"there was really no discussion able to be had.” Trial Tr., p. 37.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"{¶9} Duell eventually contacted Jeff Craig, owner of Craigwise Construction, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"and requested that he go to the Cetorelli home and essentially “sign off” on the roof. Craig","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"is an independent and objective roofer who Duell randomly selected to inspect and provide","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"an opinion regarding the workmanship. In other words, Duell and Craig had no prior","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"relationship. Craig went to Cetorelli’s home and Picone was present when Craig arrived.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Craig took 85 to 100 pictures and later forwarded them to expert witness, Vanessa Vega. Craig","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"testified that after he inspected the roof and gutters, he could not morally or ethically sign off","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"on the work done. Craig stated the roof was improperly installed and “you could see that","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"even from the ground.” Trial Tr., pp. 311-12. Craig reported to both Duell and Cetorelli that","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"the roof and gutters needed to be redone. Craig signed an Affidavit stating that in order for","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"the roof to be done properly, it must be torn off and replaced in its entirety. Craig further","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"testified that, in response to his report, Duell became very hostile and threatened Craig to","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"withdraw his opinion. Duell admitted, via his deposition, that he told Craig, “I would just be","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"cautious that you don't get yourself into a situation where you're dragged into court.” Trial","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Tr., p. 32. Thereafter, Duell did not make any repairs or replacements. Craig advised Duell","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"that the situation won't go away, that he needed to make it right with Cetorelli.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"{¶10} On June 14, 2022, Cetorelli filed her initial Complaint. On December 7, 2022,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"she sent Duell a letter attempting to cancel the Contract and receive a refund and cited the","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Home Sales Solicitation Act’s provision, R.C. 1345.23. There is nothing in the record to","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"suggest that Duell returned any of Cetorelli's payments following that letter, as statutorily","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"required. On February 24, 2023, Cetorelli sent a second letter attempting to cancel the","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Contract and obtain a refund. On May 3, 2023, Cetorelli filed the instant action. Thereafter,","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Duell informed her that he removed the five-year warranty from their initial Contract because","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"of his gut feeling that Cetorelli would be difficult.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"{¶11} During trial, Vanessa Vega (“Vega”) testified as an expert on behalf of Cetorelli.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"For this case, Vega inspected Cetorelli's roof on September 27, 2023, and completed a report","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"with photographs. Vega's inspection revealed numerous issues with the job performed by","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Duell Action Builders. Trial Tr., pp. 143-197. Vega produced an expert report and also","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"testified as to the numerous ways in which Duell Action Builders failed to perform the work","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"in a workmanlike manner and the many ways that the defective workmanship will result in","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"water intrusion. Specific issues included: (1) Areas in which the fascia was exposed, allowing","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"water intrusion; (2) The failure to install the gutters properly, resulting in water flowing back","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"toward the roof and down the side of the home; (3) Incomplete and messy caulking, which","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"can allow water intrusion; (4) Multiple protruding and exposed nails, which can allow water","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"intrusion; (5) Damage to the skylights and incomplete caulking and flashing around the","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"skylights, which can allow water intrusion; (6) Old shingles left around roof vents; (7) An","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"incorrect boot used around the electrical pole vent; (8) No water channels around roof vents,","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"allowing water to be trapped under shingles; and (9) Multiple lifted, raised, or curled shingles","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"due to poor installation and workmanship. In her expert opinion, the workmanship was","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"“pretty bad,” and the roof should be replaced. Id. Vega provided an accompanying estimate,","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"admitted as an exhibit, that itemized each element of the repair for a total replacement cost","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"of $40,710.12.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"{¶12} Duell and Duell Action Builders also called their own expert witness, Michael","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Kennedy, to rebut aspects of Vega’s testimony and report. Kennedy conducted his inspection","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"approximately one year after Vega's inspection. On cross-examination, Kennedy stated that","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"withholding a warranty and not informing a customer that subcontractors would perform the","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"roof work did not comport with legitimate business practices. Kennedy further stated that","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"wood decking cannot and should not be placed on top of existing shingles and acknowledged","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"that the rolled roofing was peeling back from the skylights. Kennedy testified that there were","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"multiple areas in which he agreed with Vega's opinion but concluded the roof could be","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"repaired, rather than replaced, and that the repairs would not be too costly. After all the","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"evidence was presented, the trial court found in favor of Cetorelli and issued detailed findings","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"of fact and conclusions of law.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"STATEMENT OF THE CASE","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"{¶13} Cetorelli originally filed suit against Duell Action Builders and Duell asserting","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"claims of Breach of Contract, Breach of Warranty, violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"Practices Act (“CSPA”), and the Ohio Home Sales Solicitation Act (“HSSA”). Cetorelli","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"proceeded to trial only upon her claims under the CSPA and HSSA. Prior to trial, Appellants","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"filed a motion to limit damages to the agreed upon contract price, or $15,350.00, and argued","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"that Cetorelli elected to pursue solely HSSA cancellation and refund remedies. The trial court","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"denied the motion and the case proceeded to a bench trial on March 18-19, 2025, and","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"April 2, 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"{¶14} The following individuals provided testimony: Cetorelli, Antonia Carbone","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"(“Carbone”), Jeff Craig (“Craig”), Vanessa Vega (“Vega”), Karl Jay Duell, Mitchell Picone","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"(“Picone”), and Michael Kennedy (“Kennedy”). Both Vega and Kennedy were admitted as","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"experts in roofing and roofing systems. At the outset of trial, Cetorelli stated she sought to","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"proceed under both the HSSA and CSPA, including an award of treble damages and attorney","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"fees. At the end of trial, the trial court instructed the parties to submit their proposed findings","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"of fact and conclusions of law; the parties filed same on April 23, 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"{¶15} Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the trial court issued its","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law finding in favor of Cetorelli on the CSPA and","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"HSSA claims. Specifically, the trial court found that: (1) Duell and Duell Action Builders","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"failed to include the requisite “Notice of Cancellation,” violating both the HSSA and CSPA;","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"(2) Duell and Duell Action Builders failed to perform the work in a workmanlike manner,","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"violating the CSPA (R.C. 1345.02(B)); (3) Duell himself stated there would be a five-year","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"workmanship warranty and then excluded the warranty from the Contract without informing","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"Cetorelli, violating the CSPA; and (4) Duell failed to inform Cetorelli that Duell Action","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Builders had no employees and would instead be using subcontractors and subcontractors","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"had no warranty, violating the CSPA. On May 1, 2025, the court awarded Cetorelli treble","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"damages in the amount of $57,000.00, plus statutory interest and costs. At a subsequent fee","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"hearing, the court awarded $66,218.50 in attorney fees, for a total judgment of $123,218.50.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Appellants filed the instant appeal and assert six (6) assignments of error.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE AND AWARDED TREBLE","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER THE CSPA AFTER PLAINTIFF","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"ELECTED CANCELLATION UNDER THE HSSA, ADMITTED CANCELLATION IN","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, AND CONFIRMED THAT ELECTION AT TRIAL.”","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"{¶17} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING TREBLE","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"DAMAGES UNDER R.C. § 1345.09(B) WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ANY PRIOR","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"JUDICIAL DECISION PLACING DEFENDANTS ON NOTICE THAT THEIR","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"CONDUCT WAS DECEPTIVE OR UNCONSCIONABLE.”","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"{¶18} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING AND RELYING","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"UPON PAROL EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED FIVE-YEAR","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"LABOR/WORKMANSHIP WARRANTY TO VARY THE PARTIES' FINAL","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"WRITTEN AGREEMENT, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"RULE, AND BY BASING FINDINGS AND LIABILITY UNDER THE CSPA ON THAT","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"EXTRINSIC WARRANTY TESTIMONY.”","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"{¶19} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING FULL","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"REPLACEMENT COST DAMAGES WITHOUT FINDING THAT REPAIR WAS","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"INADEQUATE, RESULTING IN AN AWARD NOT SUPPORTED BY THE","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"{¶20} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING PERSONAL","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"LIABILITY UPON KARL JAY DUELL IV FOR ALLEGED CSPA VIOLATIONS","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"WHERE (A) DRAFTING A NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACT SUPPORTS, AT MOST,","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"A REMEDIAL HSSA CONSEQUENCE, AND (B) THE COURT RELIED UPON","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"INADMISSIBLE PAROL EVIDENCE TO FIND DECEPTIVE \"WARRANTY","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"STRIPPING.\"","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"{¶21} “VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES BASED UPON AN","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"UNENFORCEABLE CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT AND BY DISREGARDING","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"INDEPENDENT EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE REASONABLE","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES.”","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"1) Are the remedies under the HSSA and CSPA mutually exclusive","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"{¶22} In their first assignment of error, Appellants claim that the remedies under the","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"HSSA and CSPA are mutually exclusive. Appellants argue that because Cetorelli provided","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"written notice to “cancel” the contract prior to trial, she elected her remedy under the HSSA","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"and was limited to a refund in the amount of $15,350.00. Cetorelli claims that the remedies","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"are not mutually exclusive and that the HSSA is part and parcel of the CSPA, such that the","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"statutes must be read together.","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"{¶23} A question of statutory construction presents an issue of law that we determine","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"de novo on appeal. Lang v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2012-Ohio-5366, ¶ 12;","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Williams v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2008-Ohio-3123, ¶ 19 (5th Dist.); citing State v. Standen,","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"2007-Ohio-5477, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.). De novo review requires “an independent review of the","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"statute without any deference to the trial court's determination.” Standen, ¶ 7. “Where the","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation. An unambiguous statute","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"is to be applied, not interpreted.” Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (1944), paragraph five of","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"the syllabus.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"{¶24} Thus, absent ambiguity, we must apply the statute as written and no","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"interpretation or further investigation is required. State v. Hurd, 2000-Ohio-2, citing State ex rel.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 584 (1995). Further, “[w]ords and phrases shall be","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.” See R.C. 1.42. Importantly, “in","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"enacting a statute, it is presumed * * * [t]he entire statute is intended to be effective” to reach","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"a just and reasonable result. R.C. 1.47(B) and (C). Santos v. Buckeye 5, LLC, 2023-Ohio-3602,","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"¶ 35 (7th Dist.), appeal not allowed, 2024-Ohio-597.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"a) Home Solicitation Sales Act Generally","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"{¶25} The Home Solicitation Sale[s] Act (“HSSA”) appears in R.C. 1345.21 through","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"1345.28. Grinder v. Schaaf, 2025-Ohio-4723, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.). The intent of the HSSA is well-","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"settled. It “is designed to provide a consumer with a weapon against high pressure sales tactics","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"occurring in the home,” and provide consumers with a cooling-off period within which a","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"transaction may be cancelled. Altek Evtl. Serv. Co. v. Harris, 2009-Ohio-2011, ¶ 31 (5th Dist.),","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"citing R. Bauer & Sons Roofing & Siding, Inc. v. Kinderman, 83 Ohio App.3d 53, 63 (2d Dist.","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"1992), citing Brown v. Martinelli, 66 Ohio St.2d 45, 50 (1981); Garber v. STS Concrete Co., L.L.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"2013-Ohio-2700, ¶12 (8th Dist.); Smith v. Sack, 2016-Ohio-763, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"{¶26} The HSSA applies to “home solicitation sales,” which are defined as “a sale of","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"consumer goods or services in which the seller * * * engages in a personal solicitation of the","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"sale at a residence of the buyer * * * and the buyer's agreement * * * to purchase is there given","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"to the seller * * *.” R.C. 1345.21(A). Courts have held that “home improvement contracts","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"generally fall within the purview of the HSSA.” Kamposek v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-344, ¶ 17","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"(11th Dist.); Patterson v. Stockert, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 6004, *11 (5th Dist.) (stating that","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"home improvement products and services, including roofing material, siding, and the like, fall","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"within the definition of “consumer goods or services.”). Here, there is no genuine dispute","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"that the HSSA applies.","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"{¶27} The HSSA requires each home solicitation sale to include a written agreement","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"in which the seller gives the buyer notice of the buyer's right to cancel the sale within three","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"business days. Garber, supra, at ¶18, citing R.C. 1345.22 and R.C. 1345.23. Pursuant to R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"1345.23(B)(l), a “Notice of Cancellation” is to appear “clearly and conspicuously on the copy","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"of the contract left with the buyer in bold face type * * *” in connection with every home","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"solicitation sale. The Notice of Cancellation must also be provided in duplicate and easily","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"detachable, with the language expressly set forth as provided in R.C. 1345.23(B)(2). If the","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"agreement does not include notice of the right to cancel, the buyer’s right to cancel does not","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"expire, and the three-day period for cancellation does not begin to run until the seller gives","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"the buyer notice of the right to cancel. Kamposek, supra, at ¶ 24, citing R.C. 1345.23(C). If the","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"buyer exercises his or her right to cancel the sale, the seller must “refund all payments made","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"under the contract of sale.” R.C. 1345.23(D)(4)(a).","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"{¶28} Here, it is undisputed that the parties’ written agreement did not contain any","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"notice of the buyer’s right to cancel. Despite the lack of notice, and after she filed the lawsuit,","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"Cetorelli sent two letters attempting to cancel the contract. Duell admitted at trial that he","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"kept all the money paid by Cetorelli under the Contract. Trial Tr., at p. 24. Because","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Appellants did not provide the required notice and did not refund the money, Appellants","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"clearly violated the HSSA and the CSPA. “Failure to comply with sections 1345.21 to","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"1345.27 of the Revised Code [HSSA] constitutes a deceptive act or practice in connection","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"with a consumer transaction in violation of section 1345.02 of the Revised Code [CSPA].”","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"R.C. 1345.28; Garber, ¶ 19; Santos, supra.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"{¶29} The buyer’s remedy under the HSSA is limited to a refund. Unlike the CSPA,","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"there is no provision for damages or attorney fees. R.C. 1345.23(D); R.C. 1345.09. Also,","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"unlike the CSPA, the HSSA does not contain a “substantial performance” exception to a","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"buyer’s right to a full refund. In other words, even if most of the work has been done under","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"a home improvement contract or the like, the buyer remains entitled to a full refund. Further,","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"the HSSA does not require the refund owed to the buyer to be offset by the benefit conferred","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"on the buyer by the seller under an unjust-enrichment theory. Sack, ¶ 33.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"b) Consumer Sales Practices Act Generally","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"{¶30} Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act is set forth in R.C. Chapter 1345 and","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"generally “prohibits suppliers from committing either unfair or deceptive consumer sales","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"practices or unconscionable acts or practices” as set forth in R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03. “In","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"general, the CSPA defines ‘unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices’ as those that","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"mislead consumers about the nature of the product they are receiving, while ‘unconscionable","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"acts or practices’ relate to a supplier manipulating a consumer’s understanding of the nature","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"of the transaction at issue.” Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 2005-Ohio-4985, ¶ 24. (Footnote","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"omitted.); Sharp v. Vaughanscapes LLC, 2024-Ohio-4749 (5th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"{¶31} The CSPA is a remedial law designed to provide civil remedies for aggrieved","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"consumers and must be liberally construed in their favor. Phillips v. Ratchet Automotive &","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Performance, 2021-Ohio-1033, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.); Hoague v. Cottrill Servs., LLC, 2024-Ohio-531,","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"¶ 55 (5th Dist.), citing Nicholson v. Davis Auto Performance, 2024-Ohio-205, ¶ 19 (5th Dist.),","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"citing Swoger v. Hogue, 2015-Ohio-506, ¶ 36 (5th Dist.), citing Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"Ohio St.3d 27, 29 (1990). The purpose of the CSPA is to protect consumers, not to assign","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"responsibility for consumers to recognize and avoid a business's deceptive acts. Id.; citing Jones","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"v. J. Duran, Inc., 2020-Ohio-4606, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). The CSPA prohibits unfair, deceptive, or","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"unconscionable acts or practices by suppliers in consumer transactions whether they occur","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"before, during, or after the transaction. Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, LLC, 2009-Ohio-","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"3554; R.C. 1345.03, R.C. 1345.02.2 There is no real dispute that Duell Action Builders’","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"replacement of Cetorelli’s roof and gutters falls under the purview of the CSPA.","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"{¶32} There are three sources that identify whether “a specific act or practice is a","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"deceptive sales practice which violates the general directive of R.C.1345.02(A) * * *” Swoger","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"v. Hogue, 2015-Ohio-506, ¶ 39 (5th Dist.). First, R.C.1345.02(B), “contains an enumerated list","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"of practices that are unfair or deceptive;” second, R.C. 1345.05(B)(2) authorizes the attorney","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"general “to adopt substantive rules defining acts or practices that violate R.C.1345.023,”","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"2 Relevant definitions of supplier and consumer are provided under R.C.1345.01 and are applicable","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"here.","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"3 Pursuant to R.C. 1345.02(B), the following are the enumerated practices that are specified as unfair","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"or deceptive:","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"(1) That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have;","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"(2) That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade,","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"style, prescription, or model, if it is not;","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"(3) That the subject of a consumer transaction is new, or unused, if it is not;","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"(4) That the subject of a consumer transaction is available to the consumer for a reason","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"that does not exist;","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"(5) That the subject of a consumer transaction has been supplied in accordance with a","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"previous representation, if it has not, except that the act of a supplier in furnishing","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"similar merchandise of equal or greater value as a good faith substitute does not","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"violate this section;","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"which are found in the Ohio Administrative Code; and third, Ohio courts may define specific","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"acts and practices that are deceptive. Id., citing Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc., 80 Ohio App.3d 1, 6","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"(6th Dist. 1992); Fletcher v. Don Foss of Cleveland, Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 82, 86 (8th Dist. 1993).","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"{¶33} For example, R.C. 1345.02(B)(2) provides that “work performed by a supplier","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"must be done in a workmanlike manner, and failure to do so may give rise to a violation of","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"the CSPA.” Sharp v. Vaughanscapes LLC, 2024-Ohio-4749, ¶ 45 (5th Dist.). However, “not","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"every breach constitutes a violation [of the CSPA].” Cartwright v. Beverly Hills Floors, Inc., 2013-","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"Ohio-2466, ¶ 17. Individual liability may also exist for acts that violate the CSPA. Swoger,","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"¶ 54, citing Grayson v. Cadillac Builders, Inc., 1995 WL 546916, * 3 (8th Dist.). “In order to hold","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"a corporate officer personally liable for his actions in violation of the CSPA, the evidence","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"must show that the officer participated in the commission of an act or specifically directed the","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"particular act to be done.” Id., citing Grayson. Finally, R.C. 1345.09 sets forth the remedies","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"for violations of the CSPA. It provides:","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"(A) Where the violation was an act prohibited by section 1345.02, 1345.03,","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"or 1345.031 of the Revised Code, the consumer may, in an individual action,","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"rescind the transaction or recover the consumer’s actual economic damages","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"plus an amount not exceeding five thousand dollars in noneconomic damages.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"(B) Where the violation was an act or practice declared to be deceptive or","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"unconscionable by rule adopted under division (B)(2) of section 1345.05 of the","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"(6) That the subject of a consumer transaction will, be supplied in greater quantity than","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"the supplier intends;","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"(7) That replacement or repair is needed, if it is not;","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"(8) That a specific price advantage exists, if it does not;","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"(9) That the supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that the supplier does not","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"have;","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"(10) That a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the representation is false.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Revised Code before the consumer transaction on which the action is based, or","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"an act or practice determined by a court of this state to violate section 1345.02,","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"1345.03, or 1345.031 of the Revised Code and committed after the decision","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"containing the determination has been made available for public inspection","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"under division (A)(3) of section 1345.05 of the Revised Code, the consumer","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"may rescind the transaction or recover, but not in a class action, three times the","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"amount of the consumer’s actual economic damages * * *.","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"R.C. 1345.09(A), (B).","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"{¶34} Thus, an individual may recover actual economic damages based upon","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"violations prohibited by R.C. 1345.02 and/or R.C. 1345.03. Subsection (B) above allows an","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"individual to recover three times the amount of actual economic damages (treble damages)","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"for violations that have been declared deceptive or unconscionable under R.C. 1345.05(B)(2)","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"(i.e. the Ohio Administrative Code) or as determined by a court of this state to violate R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"1345.02, 1345.03, or 1345.031 after the decision has been made available for public","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"inspection. Id. at ¶ 28. “Actual economic damages” means direct, incidental, or","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"consequential pecuniary losses resulting from violations of the CSPA. (Emphasis added);","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"Smith v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 2006-Ohio-5863, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"c) Specific Violations of CSPA and HSSA","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"{¶35} Here, the record contains competent, credible evidence to support the trial","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"court’s findings that Duell and Duell Action Builders committed numerous violations of the","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"CSPA and HSSA. First, roof expert Vega produced an expert report and testified as to the","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"numerous ways in which Duell Action Builders failed to perform the work in a workmanlike","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"manner and the many ways that the defective workmanship will result in water intrusion.","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"Overall, she opined the work performed was “pretty bad.” Duell himself also admitted that","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"there were wavy shingles on Cetorelli's roof, and that he was unhappy with the ridge cap and","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"other aspects of the job done by the subcontractor crew. Thus, while not every breach of","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"warranty or breach of contract rises to the level of a violation under the CSPA, the facts of","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"this case support the trial court’s finding that Duell Action Builders violated R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"1345.02(B)(2).","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"{¶36} Second, Duell hired unknown subcontractors to perform the work and did not","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"inform Cetorelli that those subcontractors would be performing the work, a violation of the","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"CSPA. Third, under R.C. 1345.02(B)(10), Duell testified as if on cross-examination that he","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"told Cetorelli there would be a five-year labor/workmanship warranty on the roof and gutters","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"prior to Cetorelli signing the Contract. Cetorelli relied on that representation when she agreed","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"to have Duell’s company replace her roof and gutters. Duell then unilaterally decided to","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"exclude the warranty from the Contract, and he did not tell her this fact until after she brought","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"litigation against him. As such, Duell and Duell Action Builders committed an unfair and","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"deceptive trade practice under R.C. 1345.02(B)(10).","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"{¶37} Fourth, pursuant to OAC 109:4-3-11(A)(5), it is a deceptive act or practice","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"when a supplier fails to conform to the “requirements of sections 1345.21 to 1345.27, and","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"1345.99 of the Revised Code relative to home solicitation sales or misrepresent in any manner,","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"the consumer's or prospective consumer’s right to cancel provided for under such sections,","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"when such sections are applicable.” It is undisputed that Duell Action Builders, and Duell as","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"the one who prepared the Contract, failed to include the Notice of Cancellation, which is a","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"violation of R.C.1345.23(B). Thus, this violation is a deceptive act or practice under the Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"Administrative Code, and a violation of the CSPA. As Duell participated in the commission","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"of the violation by failing to include the Notice of Cancellation, he is also personally liable for","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"the violation of the CSPA.","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"{¶38} Fifth, pursuant to OAC 109:4-3-05(D)(16), in transactions involving the","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"performance of any repair or service, it is a deceptive act or practice for the supplier to “fail","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"to disclose to the consumer * * * that any part of the repair or service will be performed by a","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"person other than the supplier or the supplier’s employees if the supplier disclaims any","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"warranty of the repair or service performed by that person * * *.” Because Duell and Duell","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"Action Builders excluded the five-year warranty for workmanship from the Contract without","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"informing Cetorelli, did not have actual employees and utilized subcontractors to perform the","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"work, both Duell and Duell Action Builders again violated the Ohio Administrative Code","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"and CSPA.","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"d) Remedies under the HSSA and CSPA are not mutually exclusive","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"{¶39} The issue arises regarding whether the remedies under the CSPA and the HSSA","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"are mutually exclusive. This Court acknowledges the numerous Ohio appellate courts that","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"hold as Appellants suggest - if a buyer or consumer elects to cancel the contract and receive a","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"full refund under the HSSA, that same consumer cannot pursue additional damages under","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"the CSPA. These courts require the consumer to “elect” his or her remedy. Sack, ¶ 27, citing","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"(holding that because the buyer canceled the contracts, he elected to proceed under the HSSA;","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"thus, his remedy was limited to a refund, and he was not entitled to damages under the","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"CSPA); Kamposek, supra; White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009-Ohio-5829, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (holding","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"the remedies provided for in these two statutes are mutually exclusive; “[h]aving chosen to","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"cancel the contract under the HSSA, [the plaintiff] could not pursue damages under the","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"CSPA.”); Garber, supra, at ¶ 23 (finding that a consumer must elect which remedy to base","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"recovery on because the consumer cannot recover under both R.C. 1345.23 and 1345.09; the","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"remedies are mutually exclusive); Allphase Restoration & Constr. v. Youngblood, 2015-Ohio-4043","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"(10th Dist.) (holding that the consumer must elect which remedy to base recovery on, either","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Ohio's Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA) or the Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA),","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"because the consumer cannot recover under both R.C. 1345.23 and R.C. 1345.09. The","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"remedies are mutually exclusive); Clemens v. Dewel, 100 Ohio App.3d 423, 433 (2d 1995)","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"(holding that the consumer was not entitled to both a recission of the contract under the HSSA","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"and treble damages under the CSPA; cancellation results in recission of the contract and","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"forecloses damages); McGill v. Image Scapes, 2010-Ohio-6246; Murphy v. Higgins, 2011 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"Misc. LEXIS 16988, *10-11 (Franklin Cty. Common Pleas) (holding that while the consumer","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"is entitled to cancel the contract under the HSSA, she is precluded from also recovering an","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"award of attorney's fees under the CSPA.); Politis v. Sponseller, 2020 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 5841,","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"*6-7 (Stark Cty. Common Pleas) (Plaintiff is not entitled to simultaneously recover under the","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"rescission remedy of the HSSA and seek damages, including treble damages, under the","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"CSPA).","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"{¶40} These cases hold that if a buyer elects to cancel the contract under the HSSA,","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"the buyer is entitled to a refund only. However, the Seventh District Court of Appeals took","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"the opposite position in Santos, supra, and specifically addressed whether a cancellation and","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"refund under the HSSA precluded recovery of damages under the CSPA. Santos, supra. In","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"Santos, the parties entered a contract for Appellee to perform home renovations. After","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"Appellee began the renovations, the parties had a disagreement. Subsequently, Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"emailed Appellee and sought to cancel. Appellant alleged he paid Appellee a total of","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"$48,219.92, yet Appellee claimed Appellant still owed $6,908. Appellee filed a mechanic's","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"lien against the property for that amount.","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"{¶41} Appellant filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the HSSA and Consumer Sales","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"Practice Act (CSPA) based on Appellee’s failure to provide notice of the right to cancel. A","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"magistrate heard the case and awarded Appellant $6,908. Both parties filed objections.","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"Appellant claimed the magistrate's decision not ordering a return of all money paid by him to","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"Appellee was an error of law. Appellee also objected and urged the court to find the","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"magistrate erred in awarding Appellant any damages. Appellee argued that because","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"Appellant “elected” to cancel the contract under the HSSA, he was not entitled to damages.","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"{¶42} The trial court found a violation of the HSSA and CSPA based on the lack of","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"notice to cancel. The trial court agreed that Appellant effectively canceled their agreement","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"and found “the Court agrees with the finding of the Magistrate that [Appellant] wielded the","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"HSSA as a sword to recoup funds he paid for services and supplies that he bargained for and","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"received. Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate's equitable determination of damages","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"and awards Plaintiff $0.” The court struck the magistrate’s award of $6,908. On appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"Appellant again claimed that because Appellee failed to provide the requisite notice, and","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"Appellant effectively canceled the parties' contract, Appellee was required to refund all money","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"paid. Santos, at ¶ 29. Appellant further argued that the trial court erred by adopting and","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"applying Appellee's sword/shield argument to reach an equitable resolution.","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"{¶43} The facts in Santos were not in dispute. The “issues and arguments [were] solely","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"about remedies and statutory interpretation.” Id. at ¶ 30. The court first recognized that","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"“Ohio's Home Solicitation Sales Act is codified in R.C. 1345.21. It is a subdivision of Ohio's","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"Consumer Sales Practice Act.” Id. at ¶ 39. In recognizing that the HSSA is part of the CSPA,","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"the court read the provisions in pari materia, and in doing so, rejected the conclusion reached","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"in Kamposek, supra, and related Ohio cases. Id. at ¶¶ 44-57.","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"{¶44} The court first noted that parties and courts often confuse the terms cancellation","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"and recission. “ ‘One remedy (cancellation) ends future (executory) obligations. The other,","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"rescission, allows the injured party to go back and essentially undo the entire contractual","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"relationship.’ ” Santos, ¶ 47 (Cancellation does not affect prior conduct, but merely ends","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"executory obligations). The court reviewed the definition of “refund” under R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"1345.23(D)(4), which requires a refund of all payments upon “cancellation” of the contract.","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"Id. at ¶ 48.","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"{¶45} In reading the HSSA and CSPA provisions together, along with the defined","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"terms, the court held that a consumer who chooses to cancel a contract under R.C. 1345.23","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"is entitled to a refund for overpayment after cancellation, in addition to the remedies available","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"under the CSPA and specifically, R.C. 1345.09. Id. at ¶¶ 49, 51. A buyer cannot “cancel” a","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"contract when the work is already complete. Thus, the election of remedy reading does not","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"extend to the remedy of cancellation under the HSSA; rather, the remedy of cancellation","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"under the HSSA is in addition to other remedies under the CSPA. Santos, ¶¶ 49-53. The","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"Court further states:","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"Thus, while we agree Appellant had the right to cancel the parties' continuing","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"agreement or contract for any services not performed based on the HSSA","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"violation, we also conclude Appellant was only entitled to a refund of money","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"paid for services not yet rendered, consistent with the meaning of the words","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"\"cancellation\" and \"refund.\" In addition to cancellation and a refund for","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"overpayment, if any, Appellant also had the remedies set forth in R.C. 1345.09","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"available.","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"R.C. 1345.09 has consistently been construed as requiring an election between","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"the mutually exclusive remedies of rescission or damages due to the clearly","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"expressed intent of the legislature embodied in the statute indicating a buyer","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"can choose recission or damages. Eckman v. Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc., 65 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"App.3d 719, 722, 585 N.E.2d 451 (1st Dist.1989). However, we conclude this","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"election of remedy reading does not extend to the remedy of cancellation set","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"forth in R.C. 1345.23. Neither R.C. 1345.09 nor R.C. 1345.23 states","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"cancellation takes the place of the remedies in R.C. 1345.09. And as stated, the","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"definition of the term cancellation provides that one who cancels a contract","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"retains the right to sue for breach. See CANCELLATION, Black's Law","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"Thus, we find no ambiguity, and upon reading the statutes collectively, as","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"required, and using the plain language of the legislature and the terms invoked,","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"we reach a sensible interpretation of the provisions consistent with reason and","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"logic. Contrary to the holdings of other courts, we conclude the remedy of","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"cancellation is in addition to the other remedies in R.C. 1345.09. A buyer","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"invoking the right to cancellation should end any future obligations and entitles","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"the buyer to a refund of money paid under the agreement for future work, if","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"any. This cancellation still allows the buyer to sue for breach and potentially","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"\"recover the consumer's actual economic damages plus an amount not","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"exceeding five thousand dollars in non-economic damages\" under R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"1345.09(A). The buyer's right to cancel continues until \"the seller has complied","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"with\" the statute's cancellation notice requirements. R.C. 1345.23(C). Neither","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"R.C. 1345.09 nor R.C. 1345.23 states the remedy of cancellation is instead of","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"those in R.C. 1345.09.","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"Santos, ¶¶ 49-51.","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"If the buyer decides to cancel the sale, the seller must refund all payments made","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"under the contract to the buyer. R.C. 1345.23(D)(4)(a). This provision","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"effectively allows the buyer to cancel the contract at any time, but the buyer may","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"be susceptible to an unjust enrichment claim by the seller.\" (Emphasis added.) Garber","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"v. STS Concrete Co., 2013-Ohio-2700, 991 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 18. The right to cancel","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"does not preclude counterclaims for unjust enrichment or set offs for the value","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"of services rendered.","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"The confusion of other courts likely stems from a lack of clarity as to what","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"cancellation means, as well as the repetition of the seemingly erroneous","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"conclusion that the election of the right to cancellation in R.C. 1345.23(D)(4)(a)","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"eliminates the right to seek damages under R.C. 1345.09. To the contrary, this","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"conclusion is inconsistent with a plain reading of the statutes and the fact that","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"the word \"cancellation\" allows a party to seek damages for breach.","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"This conclusion is also supported by the limitation on when rescission is","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"available as a remedy for a CSPA violation. R.C. 1345.09(C)(1) states","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"rescission is only an appropriate remedy under the CSPA \"within a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"time\" after discovery of the grounds for it and before \"there has been a substantial","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"change in the subject of the consumer transaction.\" Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"St.3d 220, 224, 18 Ohio B. 281, 480 N.E.2d 802 (1985). But see Garber v. STS","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"Concrete Co., 2013-Ohio-2700, 991 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 25. Thus, where there was a","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"substantial change in the subject of the consumer transaction, like the instant","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"case, rescission is not an available remedy. Reichert, supra.","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"Santos, ¶¶ 57-59.","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"{¶46} We find the Santos reasoning persuasive. At the time Cetorelli attempted to","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"“cancel” the contract with Appellants, the roof work was complete. Thus, Cetorelli","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"technically could not cancel the contract under the HSSA provision, R.C. 1345.23. Similarly,","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"the CSPA’s recission remedy was unavailable to Cetorelli because there had already been a","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"“substantial change” in the subject of the consumer transaction, namely the roof and gutters.","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"Thus, under these facts, the only true remedies available to Cetorelli are damages under the","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"CSPA. As held by the Seventh District, the provisions of the HSSA and CSPA must be read","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"together to achieve a reasonable and just result. Under the present facts, we conclude that the","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"remedies of cancellation and refund under the HSSA provision (R.C. 1345.23), do not","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"preclude Cetorelli from pursuing damages under the CSPA.","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"{¶47} To hold otherwise results in a consumer with no CSPA remedies once they","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"have attempted to exercise a “cancellation.” Such a result does not make sense and would","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"violate the very purpose and protections of both the CSPA and HSSA, particularly in more","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"egregious cases such as this one. If the consumer must sue to obtain even a refund, that","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"consumer would never be made whole due to the sheer cost of litigation. The failure to give","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"a refund should in and of itself entitle a consumer to pursue remedies under the CSPA. We","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"conclude that the remedies available under the CSPA remain available to Cetorelli","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"irrespective of her notices of cancellation. Appellants’ first assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"2) Requisite findings under CSPA to award treble damages","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"{¶48} Appellants' second assignment of error acknowledges that pursuant to R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"1345.09(B), the trial court made findings of law that Duell Action Builders committed","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"violations under the Ohio Administrative Code, and R.C. 1345.02(B)(2) and (B)(10) (as set","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"forth above), but argue that the trial court was also required to make findings that the","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"violations were previously determined by an Ohio court to violate R.C. 1345.02, 1345.03, or","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"1345.031. Appellants claim error because they were not on notice that their conduct was","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"deceptive or unconscionable. We disagree. R.C. 1345.09(B) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"Where the violation was an act or practice declared to be deceptive or","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"unconscionable by rule adopted under division (B)(2) of section 1345.05 of the","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"Revised Code before the consumer transaction on which the action is based, or","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"an act or practice determined by a court of this state to violate section 1345.02,","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"1345.03, or 1345.031 of the Revised Code and committed after the decision","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"containing the determination has been made available for public inspection","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"under division (A)(3) of section 1345.05 of the Revised Code, the consumer","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"may rescind the transaction or recover, but not in a class action, three times the","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"amount of the consumer’s actual economic damages or two hundred dollars,","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"whichever is greater, plus an amount not exceeding five thousand dollars in","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"noneconomic damages or recover damages or other appropriate relief in a class","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"action under Civil Rule 23, as amended.","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"{¶49} Stated differently, Appellants assert that a court may award treble damages","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"only if the violations are both (1) declared deceptive or unconscionable in the Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"Administrative Code; and (2) an act or practice determined by an Ohio court to violate R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"1345.02, 1345.03, or 1345.031 which is also included in the Ohio Attorney General's public","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"inspection file. However, the plain language of the statute of R.C. 1345.09(B) expressly states","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"that the trial court need only make a finding that the CSPA violation(s) was an act or practice","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"declared deceptive or unconscionable under the Ohio Administrative Code or was an act or","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"practice that has been determined to violate the above sections by an Ohio court and is in the","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"public inspection file. Appellants’ suggestion that both findings must be made is overly","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"burdensome and wholly ignores the plain language of the statute. No further analysis is","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"needed. Appellants’ second assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"3) Parol Evidence Rule","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"{¶50} In the third assignment of error, Appellants argue the trial court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"allowing Cetorelli’s testimony regarding Duell’s statement to Cetorelli regarding a five-year","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"labor/workmanship warranty for the roof and gutter work and by basing CSPA liability on","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"said extrinsic testimony.4 The trial court found, and Duell admitted, that he orally promised","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"Cetorelli a five-year workmanship warranty. Trial Tr., pp. 20-21. Duell later decided to","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"exclude any workmanship warranty without informing Cetorelli until after she brought","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"litigation against him. Id. Duell testified he removed it because he “had a gut feeling that she","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"was argumentative * * *” Id., pp. at 426-428.","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"4 Appellants’ Brief states: “Appellee introduced testimony that Appellants orally promised a five-","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"year workmanship warranty and later \"took it away.”","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"{¶51} Interestingly, Cetorelli called Duell as their first witness as if on cross-","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"examination. Counsel asked Duell regarding the promise of a five-year warranty and its","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"ultimate exclusion from the contract. Id., pp. 18-21. Defense counsel did not object at any","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"time during this line of questioning. The specific objection based on parol evidence was not","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"made until later, when Cetorelli testified, and answered a line of questions regarding the","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"warranty. Id., p. 56-57. Thus, there was no objection to Duell’s testimony. Duell later","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"testified as part of his defense and, upon questioning by the Court, admitted his oral promise","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"of a five-year warranty with no objection. Id., pp. 426-429.5","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"5 The following exchange took place:","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"DEFENDANT: I removed the warranty before doing business with Miss Cetorelli","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"because I noticed that there was - - I had a gut feeling that she was argumentative from","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"the get-go and I just - - I told Mitch [Picone], I said, She’s not dealing - - a little wishy","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"washy, and I said, “Just remove it, but if she has problems, we’ll go back out,” which","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"we did. We still stand by it.","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You testified earlier that she","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"was going through a tough time and her husband there was sick. * * * And then now","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"you’re saying she’s argumentative. Then why did you take the job? * * * Well, if","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"someone’s going through a tough time and their husband’s sick, would you agree their","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"mind may not be clear?","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"DEFENDANT: Yes.","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"THE COURT: And did you take that into consideration when you were doing this","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"contract?","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"DEFENDANT: Absolutely, sir. I removed money off the bill and I treated her as","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"fairly as I could with the free drywall services.","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"THE COURT: How many other contracts have you stripped the warranty out of?","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"DEFENDANT: A few times I’ve had an uneasy feeling with customers.","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"THE COURT: Did you sit down and explain to her that you were stripping the","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"warranty out of the contract?","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"DEFENDANT: No.","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"THE COURT: Would you agree a warranty is a pretty important part of the contract?","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"DEFENDANT: It is. * * *","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"Trial Tr., pp. 427-428.","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"{¶52} Failure to object waives the error on appeal, unless the party can demonstrate","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"plain error. In civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error seriously affects the","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself. Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"(1997), syllabus. This is not such an exceptional case.","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"{¶53} Assuming a proper objection, Appellant’s argument is without merit. The","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"parol evidence rule provides that “ ‘absent fraud, mistake or other invalidating cause, the","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"parties’ final written integration of their agreement may not be varied, contradicted or","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"supplemented by evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, or prior written","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"agreements.’ ” Galmish v. Cicchini, 2000-Ohio-7, quoting 11 Williston on Contracts (4th Ed.1999)","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"at 569-570. “The principal purpose of the parol evidence rule is to protect the integrity of","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"written contracts.” Id. By prohibiting evidence of parol agreements, the rule ensures the","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"stability, predictability, and enforceability of finalized written instruments. Id. As such, “[t]he","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"parol evidence rule prohibits a party who entered a written contract from contradicting the","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"terms of the contract with evidence of alleged or actual agreements.” Williams v. Spitzer","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 2009-Ohio-3554, ¶ 14. The prohibitions of the parol evidence rule","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"are a matter of substantive law, not merely a rule of evidence, such that testimony introduced","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"in violation of the rule, even in the absence of objection thereto, can be given no legal effect.","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"Id. at ¶ 15 (finding that the parol evidence rule applies in causes of action under CSPA); Raze","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"Int'l, Inc. v. Southeastern Equip. Co., 2016-Ohio-5700, discretionary appeal not all’d, 149 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"St.3d 1407 (2017).","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"{¶54} Appellants maintain that the parties’ written contract constituted the entire","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"expression of their agreement such that the testimony regarding the warranty is barred from","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"consideration. We disagree. It is clear the parties’ contract contains no written labor or","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"workmanship warranty beyond warranties implied by law; it is silent in this regard. It likewise","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"contains no integration or merger clause. Cetorelli also stated at trial that neither the estimate","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"nor the final contract contained any written labor/workmanship warranty. However, both","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"Duell and Cetorelli testified that Duell orally promised a five-year workmanship warranty","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"prior to Cetorelli agreeing to the roof work. Thus, according to Appellants, “the court","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"admitted and relied upon that testimony to find deceptive conduct at the time of contracting.”","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"Appellants’ Brief at pp. 14-15. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"{¶55} In Galmish supra, the Supreme Court discussed the interaction between the","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"parol evidence rule and allegations of fraud. The court noted the principal purpose of the","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"parol evidence rule is to protect the integrity of written contracts. Galmish, supra, citing Ed","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Society Natl. Bank, 75 Ohio St.3d 433, 440 (1996). The court found the","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"parol evidence rule does not prohibit a party from introducing extrinsic evidence for the","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"purpose of proving fraudulent inducement, even if the agreement contains an integration","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"clause. Galmish, ¶ 28. The court went on to hold, however, the parol evidence rule applies in","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"cases where a party alleges the inducement to sign the writing was a promise, the terms of","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"which are “directly contradicted” by the signed writing. This means an oral agreement is not","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"preferred over the signed writing addressing the same subject matter, but with different terms.","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"Id, at ¶ 29 (citations omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"{¶56} In Galmish, Galmish acquired certain property under the terms of the divorce","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"settlement with Cicchini. The Court ultimately found Galmish's claim was essentially that","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"the resale of the property at a profit was a condition of the sale to Cicchini, and at the time","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"the parties executed the contract Cicchini never intended to resell the property. The Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"Supreme Court found Galmish’s alleged agreement to resell the property did not contradict or","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"vary the terms of the written agreement under which she sold the property to Cicchini and thus","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"was not barred by the parol evidence rule. Id.; Raze, supra, ¶ 34 (holding that if parol evidence","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"used to show fraud in the inducement is independent of the written instrument or “does not","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"directly contradict the signed writing,” then it is admissible; an integration clause does not","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"vitiate this exception); compare Jeffrey Allen Indus., LLC v. Manco, 2011-Ohio-2655, ¶ 68 (5th","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"Dist.) (appellees' promise, made before the written contract was signed, to pay a higher price","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"than that set out in the contract certainly varied and contradicted an essential term of the","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"contract and was barred by the parol evidence rule).","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"{¶57} In Raze, supra, the sales contract for the sale of an excavator was comprised","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"primarily of the sales order. It clearly indicated that sale was conditioned on the customer’s","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"(i.e., Raze's) approval. The warranty section of the sales order contained three different","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"options but none of the three options were checked off or completed. As such, the court held","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"that because the sales contract stood silent on the issue of a warranty, the customer’s assertion","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"regarding a representation made that the seller would stand by the machine did not contradict","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"the written agreement in any way. Raze, ¶¶ 33-35 (extrinsic evidence can be used to show","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"fraud in inducing a contract where the parol evidence does not directly contradict the terms","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"of the signed writing). Thus, the parol evidence rule did not bar the warranty representation.","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"{¶58} Here, the principles from Galmish and Raze are instructive. Based on the","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"contract at issue, we conclude that the promised five-year labor warranty does not","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"“contradict” or vary any term in the written contract. The agreement is silent regarding a","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"labor/workmanship warranty, and any other express warranty for that matter. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"Cetorelli and/or Duell’s testimony regarding Duell’s oral promise of a five-year labor","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"warranty is not barred by the parol evidence rule. Appellants’ third assignment of error is","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"4) Replacement Cost of the Roof - Manifest Weight of the Evidence","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"{¶59} In the fourth assignment of error, Appellants argue the trial court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"awarding full replacement cost damages without determining that replacement was in fact","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"necessary, or that the repairs were insufficient. Appellants claim the award is against the","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"manifest weight of the evidence. Appellants rely on their expert, Kennedy, who testified that","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"the issues he observed could be remedied through targeted repairs. Appellants further argue","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"that although Vega preferred replacement, she did not expressly state that repairs were not","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"feasible. Again, we disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"{¶60} The standard of review for a manifest weight challenge in a civil case is the","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"same standard applied to a criminal case. Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 17. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"“[w]eight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence,","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.’ ” Id. Under a manifest","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"weight challenge, an appellate court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"warranting reversal. Id. at ¶ 20. A judgment will not be reversed as being against the manifest","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"weight of the evidence where the judgment is supported by some competent, credible","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"evidence.","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"{¶61} The trial court expressly found the expert testimony of Vega credible, and Vega","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"clearly opined that the workmanship errors required a total replacement. In addition to the","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"numerous substantive issues that needed to be rectified, Vega testified that tearing off shingles","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"where rotted wood is located “defeats the purpose of having a brand-new roof because now","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"you’re going to have a patched roof, and it may not match because it's been a couple of years.”","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"Trial Tr., p. 284. Further, Craig, an independent witness who inspected Cetorelli’s roof at","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"Duell’s request, similarly stated in his Affidavit that the roof needed to be completely torn off","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"and replaced. Without question, the trial court’s determination is supported by competent,","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"credible evidence. Importantly, the trial court determined Vega’s estimate was high, and","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"reduced Vega’s $40,000.00 replacement cost to $19,000.00, the cost testified to by Duell’s","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"expert. Appellants’ fourth assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"5) Personal Liability - Karl Duell","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"{¶62} In the fifth assignment of error, Duell argues the trial court improperly","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"determined he should be personally liable. “A corporate officer may be held individually","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"liable for acts that violate the CSPA.” Swoger, supra, ¶ 54, citing Grayson v. Cadillac Builders,","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"Inc., 1995 WL 546916, *3 (8th Dist. 1995); State ex rel. Fisher v. American Courts, Inc., 96 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"App.3d 297 (1994); “In order to hold a corporate officer personally liable for his actions in","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"violation of the CSPA, the evidence must show that the officer participated in the commission","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"of an act or specifically directed the particular act to be done.” Id., citing Grayson at *3;","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"Luckoski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013-Ohio-5460 (2d Dist.); Garber supra, ¶ 27 (“In certain contexts,","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"* * * individuals can be held to answer for the actions of the company. Violations of the CSPA","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"offer such a context. Where officers or shareholders of a company take part in or direct the","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"actions of others that constitute a violation of the CSPA, that person may be held individually","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"liable.”)","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"{¶63} Here, the record makes clear that Duell personally participated in multiple","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"violations of the CSPA and HSSA, for which he is personally liable. Duell is the owner and","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"sole member of Duell Action Builders. Duell initially visited Cetorelli’s home, solicited the","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"roof and gutter work, and prepared the parties’ contract that did not include the requisite","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"notice. Duell failed to inform Cetorelli that the work would be done by subcontractors, Duell","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"told Cetorelli there would be a five-year warranty and then unilaterally removed it without","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"informing Cetorelli, and Duell refused to fully correct the workmanship defects despite an","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"independent roofer telling Duell to do so, all of which are violations under either the CSPA","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"and HSSA.","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"{¶64} Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, it is not necessary to make findings to “pierce","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"the corporate veil” in this case because Duell’s own direct actions violate the CSPA. The","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"CSPA creates a “tort which imposes personal liability upon corporate officers for violations","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"of the act performed by them in their corporate capacities.” Swoger, ¶ 54, quoting Grayson,","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"supra, fn. 1. As the Second District noted, “we need not determine whether to pierce the","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"corporate veil since McGarvey’s liability is not based upon his status as a shareholder but","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"upon his direct actions in violating the OCSPA.” Luckoski, at ¶ 36, citing Inserra v. J.E.M. Bldg.","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"Corp., 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5447 (9th Dist.); Garber, supra, at ¶ 27; Mohme v. Deaton, 2006-","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"Ohio-7042 (12th Dist.); Hanamura-Valashinas v. Transitions by Firenza, LLC, 2020-Ohio-4888,","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"¶ 61 (11th Dist.). Appellants’ fifth assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"6) Attorney Fees under CSPA","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"{¶65} In the sixth assignment of error, Appellants argue that Cetorelli had a","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"contingent fee agreement with her counsel, and because the agreement was not in writing as","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"required under Ohio law, she cannot recover attorney fees. Appellants’ argument is wholly","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"without merit.","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"{¶66} The statute is clear. Pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F)(2), “[t]he court may award","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee limited to the work reasonably performed,","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"if * * * [t]he supplier has knowingly committed an act or practice that violates this chapter.”","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"When the supplier in a consumer transaction intentionally committed an act or practice which","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"is deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable, the trial court may award a consumer reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"attorney fees. Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (1990), syllabus; Scipio v. Used Car","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"Connection, Inc., 2013-Ohio-4325, ¶ 12. The decision to grant or deny attorney fees under","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"R.C. 1345.09(F) is discretionary and will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion. Charvat","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"v. Ryan, 2006-Ohio-4592, ¶ 6, citing Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc. v. Vaughn,","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"2006-Ohio-698 (10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"In Palm Harbor this court stated:","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"[a]ctions brought under R.C. Title 13 typically involve relatively small damages, yet","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"the cost of recovering those damages may be enormous, as the offending suppliers may","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"stoutly defend themselves * * *. Confronted with the likelihood of incurring very much","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"more debt in attorney fees than could be recovered in damages, most consumers would","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"never bring or continue to prosecute an action for a private remedy. Gaskill v. Doss","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"(Dec. 26, 2000), Fairfield App. No. 00 CA 4, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 6185, quoting","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"Sprovach v. Bob Ross Buick, Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 117, 121, 628 N.E.2d 82.","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"Smith v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 2006-Ohio-5863, ¶ 33 (5th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"{¶67} Here, the trial court held a hearing to determine an appropriate award of","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"attorney fees. The trial court noted that Cetorelli’s counsel, Attorney Morrison, asserted that","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"there was a verbal agreement with Cetorelli that the attorney fee would be whatever was","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"awarded by the Court pursuant R.C.1345.09(F). Attorney Morrison was aware of the","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"attorney fee provision in the CSPA because he handled previous cases of this nature in the","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"same manner. The trial court proceeded to award fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2), precisely as","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"the result of deceptive acts and/or practices that violated the CSPA. The court stated:","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"It is obvious to the Court that Plaintiff's counsel put an immense amount of","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"work into this case. Consumer Sales Practice Act claims are difficult to prove,","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"with the risk of recovery at a high end. The Court finds there is no Contingent","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"Fee Agreement even though Plaintiff and her counsel entered into a fee","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"agreement after the Court issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"Judgment Entry, August 28, 2025, p. 2, reinstating the Judgment Entry, July 10,","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"2025.","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"{¶68} The trial court awarded such fees based on the accepted lodestar analysis and","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"did not enhance those fees in any manner. When ruling on a request for attorney fees, a trial","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"court must determine the “lodestar,” which is the attorney’s reasonable hourly rate multiplied","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"by the number of hours reasonably worked on the litigation.6 Scott v. First Choice Auto Clinic,","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"Inc., 2023-Ohio-3855 (10th Dist.) (awarding attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) using the","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"6 According to Bittner, “[w]hen awarding reasonable attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F)(2), the","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"trial court should first calculate the number of hours reasonably expended on the case times an hourly","paragraph_id":"para_805"},{"text":"fee, and then may modify that calculation by application of the factors listed in DR 2-106(B) [which","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"is now Prof.Cond.R. 1 .5(a)].” Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 146 (1991), syllabus.","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"lodestar approach). Thus, an award of attorney fees must be based on actual services","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"performed, and there must be some evidence supporting the court’s determination. Id., at","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"¶ 45. “There is a strong presumption that the lodestar amount is the proper amount for an","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"attorney-fee award.” Id., citing Phoenix Lighting Group, L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Group, L.L.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"2020-Ohio-1056, ¶ 19. The evidence must substantiate the award of fees as being reasonable.","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"Id. Such evidence showing the reasonableness of the attorney fees may take the form of","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"testimony, affidavits, answers, or other forms of sworn evidence. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"{¶69} “Unless the amount of fees determined is so high or so low as to shock the","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"conscience, an appellate court will not interfere.” White v. Lima Auto Mall, Inc., 2009-Ohio-","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"411, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.), citing Brooks v. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-GMC, Inc., 23 Ohio App.3d 85, 91","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"(12th Dist.1985). A trial court judge has “an infinitely better opportunity to determine the","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"value of services rendered by lawyers who have tried a case before him than does an appellate","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"court.” White, at ¶ 16, citing Brooks, at 91; Lunar Lagoons LLC v. Stephens, 2025-Ohio-2389,","paragraph_id":"para_820"},{"text":"¶ 63 (3d Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_821"},{"text":"{¶70} The type of fee agreement between Cetorelli and her counsel is wholly","paragraph_id":"para_822"},{"text":"irrelevant to the attorney fees awarded by the trial court under R.C. 1345.09(F). Appellants’","paragraph_id":"para_823"},{"text":"focus upon whether Cetorelli had a “contingency fee agreement” with her counsel is merely","paragraph_id":"para_824"},{"text":"an attempt to distract the court with respect to the award of fees. The trial court carefully","paragraph_id":"para_825"},{"text":"considered the elements of the lodestar, stating, “the Court has taken in all the relevant factors","paragraph_id":"para_826"},{"text":"as set out in the Lodestar guidelines * * *.” Further, the trial court even reduced some hours","paragraph_id":"para_827"},{"text":"and fees that the trial court found were not reasonable. Appellants’ own expert testified that","paragraph_id":"para_828"},{"text":"the rates of Cetorelli’s counsel were below those of similarly experienced attorneys.","paragraph_id":"para_829"},{"text":"Accordingly, the trial court’s award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) was","paragraph_id":"para_830"},{"text":"proper and reasonable. Appellants’ sixth assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_831"},{"text":"CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_832"},{"text":"{¶71} Appellants’ first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are","paragraph_id":"para_833"},{"text":"overruled in their entirety. The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is","paragraph_id":"para_834"},{"text":"affirmed in all respects.","paragraph_id":"para_835"},{"text":"{¶72} Costs to Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_836"},{"text":"By: Montgomery, J.","paragraph_id":"para_837"},{"text":"Hoffman, P.J. and","paragraph_id":"para_838"},{"text":"Popham, J. concur.","paragraph_id":"para_839"}],"word_count":10693,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"2810f24eab50bd67953f3d14056e7249ea22c22f675933517a12c9b3c46e0aa9","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2026/2026-Ohio-2811.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-09T17:28:47.191+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","verification":{"stored_sha256":"2810f24eab50bd67953f3d14056e7249ea22c22f675933517a12c9b3c46e0aa9","recomputed_sha256":"2810f24eab50bd67953f3d14056e7249ea22c22f675933517a12c9b3c46e0aa9","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T01:27:19.477Z"}},"hash":"sha256:c22caae6f4fc12530451727e82674dd5adde9340e496d1aac2315895133e6a5c","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:c22caae6f4fc12530451727e82674dd5adde9340e496d1aac2315895133e6a5c","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T02:27:20.062Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-2e114ae4bd7c38bec14a90d75db10f48","response_hash":"sha256:c22caae6f4fc12530451727e82674dd5adde9340e496d1aac2315895133e6a5c"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:38:14.887Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-2025ca00130-2026-07-22&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":37547}}