McGlumphy v. Richard T. Kiko Agency, Inc., 2014 Ohio 3479

Kiko Agency, Inc. and Russ Kiko Associates (Kiko) were hired to sell 836 Lorain Street in Akron via auction.
Edwin McGlumphy bid $9,900 and signed the Purchase Agreement, which included a broad arbitration clause.
Arbitration clause required disputes to be resolved by AAA or similar organization, with venue in Stark County and waiver of court/jury relief.
McGlumphy alleged damages from delayed closing and title transfer, claiming breach of contract, fraud, vendor’s lien, and specific performance.
Kiko moved to stay proceedings pending arbitration; the trial court denied due to procedural unconscionability.
On appeal, the court held the arbitration clause must be evaluated for both procedural and substantive unconscionability; remanded for full consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied stay pending arbitration on the basis of procedural unconscionability alone.	McGlumphy argues the court erred by considering only procedural unconscionability.	Kiko contends the court should assess both procedural and substantive unconscionability.	Arbitration must be examined for both prongs; remand for full consideration.

Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 2009-Ohio-2054 (Ohio Supreme Court (2009)) (arbitration favored; unconscionability requires both prongs)
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio Supreme Court (2008)) (unconscionability requires both procedural and substantive proof)
Ball v. Ohio State Home Servs., Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 23063, 2006-Ohio-4464 (9th Dist. Summit (2006)) (defines procedural vs. substantive unconscionability)
Porpora v. Gatliff Building Co., 160 Ohio App.3d 843 (9th Dist. (2005)) (role of bargaining position in procedural unconscionability)
Didado v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 81 Ohio App.3d 302 (8th Dist. (1992)) (early framework for unconscionability in arbitration)