Baaron, Inc. v. Davidson
44 N.E.3d 1062
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Norma Davidson (consumer) hired Baaron, Inc. dba TDP Contracting to renovate a recently purchased home; initial quoted work and price were disputed at trial.
- TDP performed expanded work (cabinets, appliances, etc.); Davidson paid $6,000 but TDP later invoiced $30,080 and sued for the unpaid balance.
- Davidson counterclaimed under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), negligence, and breach of contract, alleging unconscionable practices and deficient workmanship.
- Jury awarded TDP $15,895 on unjust enrichment and Davidson $18,000 on her CSPA claim, finding unconscionable conduct and that Davidson was a susceptible consumer.
- Trial court trebled damages and awarded Davidson attorney’s fees of $10,000 after offsets; TDP appealed contesting supplier status under the CSPA, sufficiency/weight of evidence, treble damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed liability findings and treble damages, reversed and remanded for a reasoned attorney-fee determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davidson) | Defendant's Argument (TDP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether TDP was a “supplier” under the CSPA | TDP solicited and performed consumer transactions (residential renovations) and thus is a supplier | TDP mainly performed commercial/foreclosure work; a single consumer job does not make it a supplier | Court: Evidence supported that TDP engaged in consumer transactions; not error to deny directed verdict on supplier issue |
| 2. Whether the CSPA verdict/damages were against the manifest weight / insufficient evidence | Davidson presented testimony and expert repair estimate showing deficient work and her susceptibility | TDP argued no evidence of unconscionability, no proof Davidson was unsophisticated or damaged; damages were excessive | Court: There was sufficient evidence of susceptibility, unconscionable conduct, and damages; verdict and $18,000 award upheld |
| 3. Whether treble damages and attorney’s fees were proper under R.C. 1345.09 | Treble and fees appropriate where unconscionable conduct proven; requested reasonable fees submitted | TDP argued trebling improper (insufficient evidence of unconscionability) and fee award was unsupported/ excessive | Court: Treble damages proper (prerequisites met); fee award reversed and remanded because trial court failed to state basis for the $10,000 fee determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Renner v. Derin Acquisition Corp., 111 Ohio App.3d 326 (Ohio App. 1996) (single isolated transaction did not make party a CSPA supplier in that context)
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (Ohio 1990) (CSPA prohibits unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts by suppliers)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinction between sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (method and requirements for awarding attorney’s fees under R.C. 1345.09)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of trial court decisions)