2012 Ohio 2972
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Crouse bought a vacant lot from Stiner and entered into a construction contract with LaGrange for a single-family dwelling.
- Crouse alleged severe flooding and numerous construction/design problems that prevented lawful occupancy of the home.
- Crouse sued four defendants; the dispute with LaGrange involved an arbitration clause in the construction contract.
- LaGrange and Stiner moved to dismiss or stay pending arbitration; the trial court denied the stay, and the issue was appealed.
- The sole appellate issue was the enforceability of the arbitration clause; the court addressed procedural unconscionability and reversed.
- The court held Crouse failed to prove procedural unconscionability, so the arbitration clause is enforceable and the case should proceed by arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the arbitration clause enforceable despite unconscionability challenges? | Crouse argued procedural and substantive unconscionability void the clause. | LaGrange argued the clause is valid and enforceable under contract law. | Arbitration clause enforceable; procedural unconscionability not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (2008–Ohio–938) (unconscionability framework; burden on proponent)
- Porpora v. Gatliff Bldg. Co., 160 Ohio App.3d 843 (2005–Ohio–2410) (adhesion and lack of explanation can show procedural unconscionability)
- Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150 (2004–Ohio–829) (factors on bargaining strength and conveyance of terms)
- Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 122 Ohio St.3d 63 (2009–Ohio–2054) (consideration of commercial context and alternatives in unconscionability analysis)
- Mynes v. Brooks, 124 Ohio St.3d 13 (2009–Ohio–5946) (appealability of stay orders in arbitration context)
- Lake Ridge Acad. v. Carney, 66 Ohio St.3d 376 (1993) (contract formation and unconscionability considerations)