2018 Ohio 4054
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background:
- Ottney bought a salvaged 1978 Corvette and paid $4,260 to Moll/Al Sobb’s for the car and to have it stripped and repainted; payments spanned Aug 2014–May 2015.
- Appellant (or his representative) negotiated the repair work; Moll retained possession of the car for ~17 months and did not complete the restoration; parts were missing and the car would not start when returned after a replevin action.
- Appellant sued for breach of contract and alleged violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) based on violations of Ohio Adm.Code rules requiring written estimates/quotations, timely completion or refund, and written receipts for deposits.
- Trial court entered judgment for defendants; after appellate procedural corrections, this appeal challenged only the OCSPA dismissal as against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The Sixth District reversed: it found the evidence supported violations of Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-13 (estimates/quotations), 109:4-3-09(A)(2) (eight‑week rule/refund/notice), and 109:4-3-07(C) (written receipts for deposits), and remanded for damages.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellees violated Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-13 by failing to provide a required written estimate/disclosure | Ottney: no compliant estimate/quote or required disclosure was provided; the repair order lacked required information | Moll: a repair order was given and/or it was a permissible written quote | Held: Violation. The repair order lacked required disclosures/identifying info and did not meet quote requirements (no 5‑day binding language). |
| Whether face-to-face contact requirement in 109:4-3-13 was unmet so rule does not apply | Ottney: his representative (father) negotiated face-to-face and Ottney himself viewed the car before purchase; rule covers representative contact | Moll: no face-to-face contact with consumer, so the rule is inapplicable | Held: Rule applies. Representative contact satisfies the face‑to‑face requirement; alternatively other subsections cover non‑face‑to‑face situations. |
| Whether appellees violated 109:4-3-09(A)(2) by accepting payment and failing to deliver, refund, or notify within eight weeks | Ottney: he paid in full and was repeatedly promised completion; no refund, notice of delay, or substitute provided during ~17 months | Moll: asserted unpaid balance/that parties agreed to a reasonable time or different payment arrangement | Held: Violation. Work was not completed within a reasonable time; no evidence he was informed delay resulted from nonpayment. |
| Whether appellees violated 109:4-3-07(C) by failing to provide written receipts for deposits | Ottney: no compliant dated receipts were produced for initial or subsequent deposits | Moll: no evidence that required receipts were provided or that an exception applied | Held: Violation. No evidence receipts were provided as required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight‑of‑evidence review)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (appellate deference to factual findings and inferences)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (limitations on re‑weighing facts on appeal)
- Crull v. Maple Park Body Shop, 36 Ohio App.3d 153 (1987) (cases discussing actual deception/damages relative to OCSPA rule violations)
- Crye v. Smolak, 110 Ohio App.3d 504 (1996) (OCSPA statutory damages and rule‑violation analysis)