Price v. KNL Custom Homes, Inc.
28 N.E.3d 640
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2005 the Prices contracted with KNL to build a custom home; construction substantially completed and a Certificate of Occupancy issued in February 2007. Disputes over a final punch list followed; Prices moved in April 2007 and later vacated the home in October 2010 after structural concerns.
- The Prices sued KNL and its president Todd Folden in February 2009 alleging breach of contract, fraud, CSPA violations, and negligence; KNL counterclaimed for unpaid work (~$20,597).
- After a three‑week jury trial, the jury found for the Prices on certain CSPA and negligence claims, for KNL on breach and fraud, and for Folden on all individual claims. Jury awarded CSPA damages of $38,311.62 and negligence damages of $20,000; jury also found KNL owed $20,597.19 on its counterclaim.
- Trial court awarded treble damages and attorney’s fees under the CSPA and entered judgment; State Auto (insurer) intervened seeking a declaratory judgment it owed no indemnity for CSPA/negligence claims.
- KNL appealed, arguing (inter alia) the CSPA claims were time‑barred and that the court improperly amended jury interrogatories; the Prices cross‑appealed seeking JNOV or a new trial on various claims.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part (sustained KNL’s statute‑of‑limitations challenge to multiple CSPA findings as time‑barred), deemed other KNL assignments moot, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prices) | Defendant's Argument (KNL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Prices’ CSPA claims are time‑barred under R.C. 1345.10(C) | Many alleged CSPA violations continued or occurred after Feb 2007; jury could have found post‑Feb‑2007 occurrences | Violative acts necessarily occurred during construction (pre‑Feb‑12‑2007 final inspection) and thus are barred by the absolute two‑year CSPA limitations period | Court: Eleven specific CSPA findings (e.g., wrong studs, missing insulation, missing 220A service, marked‑up I‑joists, etc.) necessarily arose during construction and are time‑barred; KNL’s assignment sustained. |
| Whether the trial court erred in unilaterally amending CSPA interrogatories (Civ.R. 49(B)) | Amending was improper and prejudicial; jury should have resolved whether acts were "unfair or deceptive" | Trial court’s change remedied inconsistent answers and allowed jury to clarify findings | Court: Declined to reach because statute‑of‑limitations ruling rendered the CSPA interrogatory issues moot. (Assignment deemed moot.) |
| Whether Prices met burden to obtain treble damages and attorney’s fees under R.C. 1345.09(B) | Argue they were entitled to treble damages/fees based on jury findings of knowing violations | KNL challenged sufficiency and timeliness of CSPA findings to support treble damages/fees | Court: Did not rule on merits because those CSPA findings were time‑barred; assignment moot. |
| Whether Prices are entitled to JNOV or new trial on breach of contract and negligence claims | Jury verdicts inconsistent (e.g., found code violations/negligence but found no material breach); damages awarded too low compared to expert remediation estimate | KNL argued reasonable minds could differ given competing expert testimony and jury verdicts were supportable | Court: Denied JNOV/new trial; jury could have found negligence without material breach; damages within jury province; verdicts not against manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing motions for directed verdict and JNOV)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (2005) (scope and remedial purpose of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act)
- Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 177 (2006) (CSPA must be liberally construed)
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (1989) (interpretation of remedial statutes)
- Cypher v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 36 Ohio App.3d 200 (1987) (distinguishing discovery rule from CSPA statute of limitations)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994) (jury’s assessment of damages not to be disturbed absent passion, prejudice, or manifest excess)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest weight review)