Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire
2017 Ohio 7213
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sterling Construction (owned by Kohli) performed remodeling work on Alkire’s house after long-standing personal relationship and discussions about renovations and costs.
- Alkire paid Sterling $40,000; work valued by Alkire’s expert at about $44,000; parties disputed completion and payments; Sterling claimed additional $26,472.18 owed.
- Trial court originally found no contract, no unjust enrichment, and that CSPA did not apply; this court in Sterling I reversed on CSPA and implied-contract issues and remanded.
- On remand, trial court found an implied contract was not breached, but found two violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (failure to provide a written estimate and a receipt) and awarded Alkire $400 in statutory damages, denying attorney fees as "unequitable."
- Alkire appealed, challenging the trial court’s failure to find an additional administrative-code violation, the damages calculation, and the denial of attorney fees; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Admin.Code 109:4-3-05(D)(3) was violated | Alkire: supplier failed to obtain authorization for >10% increase so violation occurred | Sterling: provision applies only where consumer requested an estimate; no estimate was requested here | No violation — rule applies only when an estimate was requested and none was requested |
| Whether Alkire suffered "actual economic damages" under R.C. 1345.09(G) | Alkire: CSPA violations produced actual damages beyond statutory damages | Sterling: Alkire paid $40,000 for work worth ~$44,000, so no economic loss — in fact a benefit | No actual damages proven; award limited to $400 statutory damages |
| Whether attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F) must be awarded | Alkire: trial court abused discretion by denying fees and failing to hold a fee hearing | Sterling: fee award is permissive; given lack of actual damages and equities, denial was proper | No abuse of discretion; denial of attorney fees affirmed as "unequitable" |
| Whether the trial court misapplied CSPA public-policy aims by denying fees | Alkire: denying fees frustrates CSPA enforcement and public policy | Sterling: informal, personal nature of transaction explains violations; policy does not mandate fees here | Court rejects public-policy argument; application of CSPA and exercise of discretion were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review of the evidence)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (judgment will not be reversed if supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (Ohio 1990) (interpretation of fee-shifting discretion under consumer-protection statute)