Scott v. First Choice Auto Clinic, Inc.
226 N.E.3d 1132
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Plaintiff Scott hired First Choice (Newsom) in 2016 to restore a 1963 Austin‑Healey in two phases (chassis/frame work, then reassembly and finish). No written cost or completion estimate was provided; First Choice gave generic "Restoration Guidelines."
- Scott paid $16,598 for phase one work; phase‑two reassembly produced alignment problems (bulkheads welded mispositioned), damaging parts; First Choice performed partial fixes but left misalignment and the car idle. Scott later paid AA Customs $8,025 to correct alignment and finish phase two.
- Scott sued asserting breach of contract, CSPA violations, unjust enrichment, respondeat superior, and fraud/ negligent misrepresentation; First Choice counterclaimed. Magistrate found liability on multiple claims, awarded $16,598 actual CSPA damages trebled to $49,794, $10,391.75 attorney fees (CSPA), and $9,409 for breach‑of‑contract out‑of‑pocket expenses.
- Trial court adopted magistrate’s findings; appellate procedural defect required an amended magistrate decision and a new final judgment. Defendants appealed the December 21, 2022 judgment.
- The appellate court affirmed liability for breach of contract and several evidentiary rulings, reversed the trebling of CSPA damages (holding Scott failed to prove actual economic damages caused by the CSPA violations), reversed the unjust‑enrichment finding as duplicative of the enforceable oral contract, and remanded to re‑calculate CSPA damages (statutory minimum applies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may recover both breach of contract and unjust enrichment | Scott sought recovery under both theories | First Choice argued unjust enrichment is barred where an express contract governs | Held: Unjust enrichment reversed — an express oral contract existed, so unjust enrichment cannot also stand |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove breach (workmanship) | Scott argued layproof and admissions showed unworkmanlike performance | Defendants argued highly technical restoration required expert proof | Held: No expert required — defendants admitted mistakes; lay evidence sufficed to establish breach |
| Whether CSPA damages could be trebled (R.C. 1345.09(B)) | Scott obtained $16,598 actual damages and sought trebling | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to prove actual economic damages caused by the CSPA violations (only procedural CSPA violations proved) | Held: Trebling reversed — plaintiff did not prove actual economic damages causally tied to the CSPA violations; remand to determine damages (statutory minimum $200 available) |
| Whether attorney fees awarded under CSPA were reasonable and supported | Scott sought $10,391.75; relied on counsel’s invoice and Scott’s testimony | Defendants challenged authentication and reasonableness of hours/rate | Held: Fee award affirmed — invoice properly authenticated and testimony supported reasonableness (lodestar) |
| Whether breach‑of‑contract corrective damages (AA Customs $8,025) were admissible | Scott relied on redacted AA Customs invoice and his testimony about payment | Defendants claimed the detailed invoice portions were hearsay and insufficient | Held: Award affirmed — redacted invoice plus plaintiff’s unobjected testimony established the $8,025 out‑of‑pocket expense |
| Whether magistrate erred in finding fraud/ negligent misrepresentation not pled | Defendants argued plain error because those claims were not pled | Plaintiff did not plead them; defendants failed to object below | Held: No plain error shown — appellate review waived; no damages awarded on those claims so no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (2012) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Jones v. Hawkes Hosp. of Mt. Carmel, 175 Ohio St. 503 (1964) (expert testimony not required for matters within lay experience)
- Bittner v. Tri‑County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (lodestar method for attorney‑fee awards)
- Whitaker v. M.T. Auto, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 177 (2006) (definition and limits of actual economic damages under CSPA)
- Marrone v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 110 Ohio St.3d 5 (2006) (when treble damages under CSPA are available)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil cases applies only in extremely rare circumstances)