2022 Ohio 158
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In April 2019 Brock hired Servpro to clean, dry, and restore his flooded West Chester basement; services were performed and Servpro removed damaged materials and dried the space.
- Brock later alleged Servpro left mold and concealed a pile of wood in a basement cubbyhole; he claimed damages of $11,440.43 (estimate to redo the work) and originally sought $6,000.
- During deposition Brock admitted Servpro repaired a broken water line, offered to remove the wood, and gave an $800 discount after knocking over his sump pump; Brock also admitted he had not paid Servpro for the work.
- Brock acknowledged he had not suffered out-of-pocket monetary loss and said he sought court action to punish Servpro for being "scammed."
- Magistrate granted Servpro summary judgment on Brock's claims and awarded Servpro $5,303.48 on its counterclaim (contract price minus $800). Brock objected only to the counterclaim ruling; the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.
- Brock appealed, arguing the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on his breach of contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on Brock's breach of contract claim was erroneous | Servpro failed to properly perform the contract (left mold/hidden debris) and breached the contract; summary judgment inappropriate | Brock admitted no compensable monetary damages and refused offers to cure; thus no essential element of breach (damages) exists | Affirmed: summary judgment proper because plaintiff admitted no damages; breach claim fails as a matter of law; plaintiff waived objections and cannot show plain error |
| Whether Servpro was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim for contract price | Brock argued Servpro caused issues and concealed debris, so counterclaim should be tried | Servpro performed work, offered to correct issues, and Brock refused to pay; therefore Servpro entitled to payment | Affirmed: judgment for Servpro in amount of $5,303.48 (original price less $800 discount) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (sets strict, limited standard for applying plain error in civil cases)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (Ohio 1982) (related precedent on civil plain-error principles)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 (Ohio 2017) (civil plain-error test requires deviation from legal rule, obviousness, and effect on fairness/integrity of proceedings)
- Jones v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 161 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2020) (holding that Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for plain-error review)
- Perez v. Falls Financial, Inc., 87 Ohio St.3d 371 (Ohio 1999) (describes high standard for invoking plain error in civil appeals)