Yashphalt Seal Coating v. Giura
2019 Ohio 4231
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In July 2016 Yashphalt Seal Coating (appellee) contracted to repave Giura’s parking lot for $22,000; Giura paid a $10,000 deposit and withheld the $12,000 balance after completion.
- Contract required removal/hauling of concrete, adding/compacting gravel, and laying a 1.5" base and 1.5" top asphalt layer (with rolling/compacting).
- After completion Giura complained of discoloration, unevenness, cracking, fence damage, and excessive concrete removal; Yashphalt admitted fence damage and said sand subbase was removed and gravel replaced.
- Appellee sued for the unpaid $12,000; Giura counterclaimed for breach/unworkmanlike performance and sought damages for fence repair and concrete replacement; case transferred to Common Pleas and tried before a magistrate.
- Magistrate found Yashphalt substantially performed, awarded appellee the balance offset by $787.88 (fence) and $3,456 (concrete); trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; Giura appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yashphalt) | Defendant's Argument (Giura) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Yashphalt breach the implied warranty to perform in a workmanlike manner? | Yashphalt: performed properly, removed sand, explained color/thickness variations, offered free sealing; no proven damages to lot. | Giura: expert Chammas showed non‑compliance with industry standards, improper subbase, variable/thin lifts, cracking/pooling. | No breach: court found conflicting evidence, no proven damages to the parking lot itself; offsets awarded only for fence and removed concrete. |
| Did Yashphalt substantially comply with the contract specifications (asphalt thickness/performance)? | Yashphalt: average thickness ~3.5"; thinner near street for drainage; substantial performance entitles recovery. | Giura: core samples showed many areas thinner than contract specs (base/top), so performance failed contract terms. | Substantial compliance found: court accepted average thickness and purpose of thinner areas for drainage; Giura’s withholding constituted breach (subject to offsets). |
| Proper standard of review for magistrate decision adopted after bench trial? | Yashphalt: appellate review should be manifest weight/affirmation of trial court’s factual findings. | Giura: advocated mixed de novo/abuse of discretion, arguing legal misapplication of substantial compliance. | Abuse of discretion applies to trial court’s ruling on objections to a magistrate after bench trial; court found no abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Centex Homes, 967 N.E.2d 1199 (Ohio 2012) (implied duty to perform construction work in a workmanlike manner)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Cochran, 132 N.E. 537 (Ohio 1922) (principle of substantial performance in contract recovery)
- Jarupan v. Hanna, 878 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio App.) (breach of implied warranty in construction contexts)