2014 Ohio 2603
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Craver contracted with Tomsic for a new home; contract price was $2,491,300 with a 445 working-day completion timeline.
- The contract contains a dispute resolution clause directing mediation or binding arbitration under Chapter 2711, with special terms governing timing and continuing work.
- Craver also had a verbal architectural services agreement with Architect for design work; Architect provided drawings and plans.
- Deadline passed; Craver left the job around November 5, 2012; Craver filed a mechanic's lien on December 31, 2012 for $133,329.27.
- Craver was served with a Notice to Commence Suit under RC 1311.11; March 2013 Craver filed suit alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking lien foreclosure, acknowledging arbitration but asserting rights to arbitration would be preserved.
- In August 2013 Craver and Architect petitioned for arbitration and a stay of litigation; Appellants opposed arbitration on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of arbitration right by Craver | Craver did not waive arbitration; he reserved rights and acted within proper procedures. | Craver acted inconsistently with arbitration rights by filing suit and pursuing lien and court processes. | Craver did not waive arbitration; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Arbitrability of counterclaims (negligence, fraud, CSPA) against Craver | Counterclaims are within arbitration scope due to contract language and touch matters covered by agreement. | Many claims are not arbitrable or not within the contract scope, especially against non-signatory Architect. | Counterclaims are subject to arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 123 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 2009) (strong public policy favoring arbitration)
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2008) (arbitration clause interpretation and enforcement)
- Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 1998) (presumption in favor of arbitration coverage)
- Council of Smaller Enterprises v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (Ohio 1998) (principles governing arbitrability; contract interpretation)
- Alexander v. Wells Fargo Fin. Ohio 1, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 241 (Ohio 2009) (scope of arbitration when contract touches underlying dispute)
- Genesco Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987) (touches matters covered by arbitration agreement)
- AT&T Technologies v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (contract-based arbitrability questions for courts )