Cartwright v. Beverly Hills Floors
2013 Ohio 2266
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Cartwright sued Beverly Hills Floors, Inc. (BHF) and Aron for deceptive/unconscionable acts under OCSPA and for related relief; BHF was a subcontractor that installed the kitchen floor and damaged the dining room floor moving a refrigerator.
- Aron, president of BHF, attempted to repair the dining room floor twice with sanding and staining, but the damage remained visible.
- Cartwright had a verbal agreement with Aron for hallway tile installation and paid a $750 deposit, but later rejected further work; tile work never commenced.
- The trial court found the kitchen work not done in a workmanlike manner but concluded there were no deceptive practices, and awarded Cartwright $1,715 (cost to repair the dining room) with fees denied.
- On remand, the trial court clarified that Cartwright must prove deceptive practices to obtain treble damages and that attorney fees could be awarded only if there was a knowing violation; the court reserved injunctive relief and attorney-fee issues for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCSPA deception verdict reconciliation | Cartwright alleges deceptive acts from tile proposal/deposit failures. | BHF contends no deceptive acts; only a breach of workmanlike performance. | Partial merit: kitchen work not deceptive; tile-related acts found deceptive; remand for full OCSPA ruling. |
| Treble damages versus rescission | Treble damages should apply due to deceptive acts. | Remedies tied to rescission; treble damages not automatic. | Trial court erred in linking treble damages to attorney fees; Cartwright elected rescission, limiting recovery. |
| Attorney fees eligibility under OCSPA | Prevailing party should receive reasonable attorney fees for OCSPA violations. | No OCSPA violation found on all counts, so no fees. | Remand to determine whether attorney fees are warranted and, if so, amount. |
| Injunctive relief availability | Requests declaratory judgment/injunction under OCSPA for ongoing practices. | No OCSPA violation previously found so relief denied. | If OCSPA violations are established on remand, injunctive relief may be appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27, 548 N.E.2d 933 (1990) (Ohio 1990) (no intent required; unfair or deceptive acts may be proven by likelihood to mislead a consumer)
- Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc., 80 Ohio App.3d 1, 608 N.E.2d 796 (6th Dist.1992) (Ohio 1992) (breach can be deceptive if it misleads consumer; material to OCSPA analysis)
- Mid-America Acceptance Co. v. Lightle, 63 Ohio App.3d 590, 579 N.E.2d 721 (10th Dist.1989) (Ohio 1989) (recission vs. damages; remedies are mutually exclusive)
- Eckman v. Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc., 65 Ohio App.3d 719, 585 N.E.2d 451 (1st Dist.1989) (Ohio 1989) (rescission vs. treble damages; structure of remedies under OCSPA)