2014 Ohio 3918
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Johnson contracted Berns to renovate his home in two phases with specified durations; the contract required written change orders for any work beyond plans; disputes arose as work progressed; Johnson barred Berns and its subs from site and terminated the contract; arbitration awarded Berns damages but reduced for claimed liquidated damages and fees; trial court confirmed the award under R.C. 2711.09 and rejected vacatur under 2711.10(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitrator exceed authority or depart from the contract terms? | Johnson argues the award contradicts the contract and cannot be derived from it. | Berns contends the award rationally reflects the contract and evidence, including waivers of written change orders. | No; award drawn from contract and not unlawful; affirmed. |
| Is the award invalid for not drawing its essence from the agreement due to lack of written change orders? | Johnson asserts damages relate to unapproved work excluded by written-change-order requirement. | Berns argues waiver by conduct and evidence at arbitration supported non-written changes. | No; waiver and evidentiary support sustain nexus to contract. |
| Did the arbitrator correctly handle time-of-performance provisions and breach timing clauses? | Johnson claims time-is-of-the-essence clause was breached by Berns’ delays. | Berns maintained completion issues were resolved by the contract and conduct. | Yes; award rationally related to work performed and timely payment under contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- CitiBank N.A. v. White, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99868, 2014-Ohio-304 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2014) (limited role of courts in vacating arbitration judgments; award draws essence from contract)
- Findlay Bd. Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129, 551 N.E.2d 186 (1990) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1990) (arbitrator’s award must draw essence from agreement to vacate under 2711.10(D))
- Mahoning Cty. Bd. Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 488 N.E.2d 872 (1986) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1986) (tests whether award has rational nexus to contract)
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emp. Assn. Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 59 Ohio St.3d 177, 571 N.E.2d 71 (1991) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1991) (arbitration review limited to essence and legality of award)