New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Eng. Inc.
2017 Ohio 8522
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- New Riegel Local School District (the School) contracted with The Buehrer Group (the Group) to provide design services for a K–12 school completed and first used by the School in December 2002; State issued Certificate of Completion in March 2004.
- The School began experiencing moisture, condensation, and related problems allegedly caused by design/construction defects and filed suit in 2015 against the Group and others asserting breach of contract and related claims.
- The Group moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting the claims were time-barred by Ohio’s statute of repose (R.C. 2305.131), the professional-negligence limitations period, and that claims against the decedent’s Estate were barred by R.C. 2117.06 (six‑month presentment rule).
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the Group based on the statute of repose and dismissed the Estate; the School appealed.
- The appellate court examined whether the statute of repose applies to breach of contract claims and whether the School timely presented its claim against the Estate under probate law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.131 (10‑year statute of repose for improvements to real property) bars the School’s breach‑of‑contract claim against the Group | Kocisko controls: statute of repose does not apply to contract claims; School’s claim is breach of contract, not tort | Statute’s plain text bars any cause of action for damages arising from improvements to real property after 10 years from substantial completion | Court: Followed Ohio Supreme Court precedent in Kocisko — statute of repose does not bar breach‑of‑contract claims; judgment on the pleadings was improper as to the Group |
| Whether the School’s claim against the Estate was barred by R.C. 2117.06(C) (six‑month presentment) | School argued tolling / computation under Civ.R. 6(A) meant timely presentment | Estate argued claim was presented one day late (presented Feb. 11, 2015), so barred by statute | Court: Claim against Estate barred — presentment was after the six‑month statutory deadline, so dismissal as to Estate affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kocisko v. Charles Shutrump & Sons Co., 21 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1986) (Ohio Supreme Court held the statute of repose did not bar breach‑of‑contract claims concerning construction defects)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (explains standard of review that courts accept factual allegations in a complaint when deciding motions to dismiss)