Nieman v. Tucker, 2020 Ohio 4704

In November–December 2017, a third party (Thomas Carter) emailed and arranged landscaping at the Niemans’ residence, claiming to be buying the property and authorizing work; Carter offered to pay by credit card and requested an overpayment/refund arrangement.
Tucker’s crew performed the work on December 16, 2017; Tucker never received payment and alleges he was subject to a phishing/fraud scheme by Carter.
On December 20, 2017 Tucker filed a mechanic’s lien against the Niemans’ property for unpaid services; the Niemans learned of the lien while closing a sale in March 2018 and paid $2,701 to obtain a release to avoid jeopardizing the sale.
The Niemans sued in municipal court, amending to allege Tucker violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) by charging for services not authorized; trial court found a CSPA violation, awarded treble economic damages, $2,500 noneconomic damages, and attorney’s fees, and concluded Tucker was a sole proprietor.
After initial appeal dismissal for lack of final order, the trial court awarded $2,985 in attorney’s fees, bringing the final judgment to $13,588; Tucker (pro se) appealed, raising two assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint named the proper defendant when Tucker used different DBAs	Niemans argued Tucker (regardless of DBA) was the responsible individual and sole proprietor; naming Tucker dba Lawn Creations Franchising, LLC was adequate	Tucker argued the suit named the wrong business entity (claimed Green Grass, Inc. dba Lawn Creations was the proper defendant)	Court held Tucker was operating as an unregistered sole proprietorship and thus personally liable; misnamed DBA did not defeat claim.
Whether Tucker committed fraud/CSPA violation absent a written contract	Niemans argued Tucker charged and liened them for services they never authorized—constituting a deceptive practice under the CSPA	Tucker argued there was no written contract and cited contract/statute-of-frauds authority (claimed trial erred in treating conduct as fraud)	Court held the claim was a CSPA deceptive-practices claim (not common-law fraud) and lack of a written contract was irrelevant; evidence showed services were unauthorized, so CSPA violation stands.

Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573 (1992) (a sole proprietorship has no legal identity separate from its owner; owner personally liable)
Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 1381 (D. Neb. 1977) (individual doing business under trade names remains personally liable for obligations)
Newbold v. Michael, 110 Ohio St. 588 (1924) (statute-of-frauds case about oral land-transfer contracts; court found this authority inapplicable to the CSPA claim)