Xtreme Elements, L.L.C. v. Foti Contracting, L.L.C., 2017 Ohio 254

Xtreme Elements (subcontractor) performed concrete work on a Southington school project under three subcontracts and sued Foti (general contractor) after Foti withheld payment; Xtreme refiled the 2012 claim in 2014.
Disputed items: a sidewalk/island near the ball field allegedly showing a cold joint (later removed and replaced at Foti’s expense) and a triangular "broom finish" area near a back door whose appearance prompted a $20,000 withholding that was later released.
Xtreme claimed breach of contract and violations of Ohio’s Prompt Payment Act (R.C. 4113.61) seeking unpaid sums, 18% statutory interest, and attorney fees; Foti counterclaimed.
Trial court found Foti unjustified in withholding $19,723.99 for the cold-joint sidewalk (and should have core-drilled) but found a good-faith dispute justified withholding on other work until Nov. 10, 2012; awarded Xtreme judgment and statutory interest on part of the claim but denied attorney fees as inequitable without a separate hearing.
On appeal the court affirmed the no-interest ruling as to the cold-joint withholding (good-faith dispute) but reversed/remanded on attorney-fee procedure: held a separate hearing on attorney fees is required by R.C. 4113.61(B)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Foti violated R.C. 4113.61 by withholding funds for the cold-joint sidewalk	Withholding was not in good faith; no valid dispute; prejudgment interest required	Withholding was in good faith because visible cold joint and legitimate concern for structural integrity	Affirmed: withholding was a good-faith dispute; no Prompt Payment Act interest for that withholding
Whether the court was required to hold a separate hearing before denying attorney fees under R.C. 4113.61(B)(3)	Statute requires a hearing on attorney-fee payment before finding fees inequitable; trial record did not substitute	Trial testimony/trial itself sufficed as the hearing on fees	Reversed: remand for a separate evidentiary hearing on attorney fees within 60 days
Whether denial of attorney fees on equity grounds was erroneous	Attorney fees should be awarded to prevailing party under the Act; inequity not shown without hearing	Denial was equitable because only part of claim implicated Prompt Payment Act and a good-faith dispute existed	Moot on appeal pending remand (court ordered hearing)

Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review of bench trial findings)
Masiongale Elec.-Mechanical, Inc. v. Construction One, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 148 (Ohio 2004) (interpreting Prompt Payment Act remedies, including mandatory interest and attorney fees)
Pruszynski v. Reeves, 881 N.E.2d 1230 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must set a date certain for an evidentiary hearing when statute requires a hearing)