2022 Ohio 788
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Zara Construction contracted to build a single-family home for Scott and Christine Belcastro; relationship soured and the Belcastros terminated the contract by letter dated April 9, 2019.
- Zara filed a mechanic’s lien (May 6, 2019) and then an amended lien (June 20, 2019) claiming unpaid sums for labor and materials; Zara also sued to foreclose the lien and asserted quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claims for post-payment-stage work.
- At trial Zara admitted the original lien amount was incorrect and testified the amended lien stated the correct figure; parties disputed the “last day of work” for lien-timing purposes.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion for directed verdict, holding the lien invalid (because of the incorrect original amount/amendment and alleged failure to prove last day of work) and barring recovery in quantum meruit/unjust enrichment under paragraph 14(b) of the written contract.
- A jury later found for Zara on remaining counterclaims (including that Zara did not breach), and Zara appealed the directed-verdict rulings.
- The Fifth District reversed the directed verdicts: it held Zara’s original affidavit substantially complied with R.C. 1311.06 (amount/amendment did not invalidate the lien and evidence supported April 9 as last day of work) and held paragraph 14(b) required a finding of contractor default (which the jury rejected), so quasi-contractual recovery remained available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/timeliness of mechanic's lien (amount, amendment, last day of work) | Zara: original affidavit satisfied R.C. 1311.06; amended lien and trial testimony fixing amount do not invalidate the lien; April 9, 2019 was last day of work so lien was timely. | Belcastro: original affidavit contained incorrect amount; filing an amended affidavit shows the first was knowingly false; Zara failed to prove last day of work was April 9 so lien untimely/invalid. | Reversed: court found substantial compliance with R.C. 1311.06; incorrect amount or later amendment did not invalidate the lien; record supported April 9 as last day of work for directed-verdict posture. |
| Availability of quantum meruit / unjust enrichment despite express contract (paragraph 14(b)) | Zara: contract is silent on recovery for work performed between progress payments when owner terminates; quantum meruit/unjust enrichment are available because paragraph 14(b) applies only on owner termination for contractor default. | Belcastro: paragraph 14(b) provides the remedy and calculation when owner terminates and supplants quasi-contract recovery; Zara drafted the contract and cannot claim ambiguity. | Reversed: paragraph 14(b) requires a finding of contractor default to trigger its remedy; jury found no breach by Zara, so unjust enrichment/quantum meruit presented a factual question for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 66 (1982) (standard for reviewing directed-verdict motions; evidence construed in favor of nonmovant)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (2002) (de novo review and reasonable-minds test for Civ.R. 50(A))
- Hawkins v. Ivy, 50 Ohio St.2d 114 (1977) (motion for directed verdict must be denied when substantial competent evidence supports the nonmoving party)
- Robert V. Clapp Co. v. Fox, 124 Ohio St. 331 (1931) (mechanic's lien statutes construed strictly insofar as whether a lien attaches)
- C.C. Constance & Sons v. Lay, 122 Ohio St. 468 (1930) (statutory steps to establish a mechanic's lien must be followed)
- Crock Constr. Co. v. Stanley Miller Const. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 588 (1993) (reaffirmation that mechanic's lien statutes are strictly construed as to attachment)
- Gebhart v. United States, 172 Ohio St. 200 (1961) (discussion questioning strict/liberal dichotomy but analyzing when strict construction applies)