Cartwright v. Beverly Hills Floors

Citation: 2013 Ohio 2266Docket: 11-MA-109

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; May 30, 2013; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

James Cartwright, the plaintiff, appealed a judgment from Mahoning County Court #5 which favored him on his claim against Beverly Hills Floors, Inc. (BHF) and its president, George Aron, for un-workmanlike performance but denied his requests for treble damages and attorney’s fees. Cartwright hired Michael’s Cabinets to remodel his kitchen, with BHF as the subcontractor. While BHF installed the kitchen floor without issues, damage occurred to the dining room floor when workers attempted to move Cartwright's refrigerator. Despite Aron’s attempts to repair the damage, it remained noticeable, and after discussions about installing ceramic tile, Cartwright ultimately refused further work from BHF. 

Cartwright filed a complaint alleging deceptive practices under Ohio Revised Code, seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. BHF counterclaimed for breach of contract and related damages. Following a bench trial, the court awarded Cartwright $1,715, including a refund of his deposit and repair costs, while denying BHF's counterclaims. Both parties appealed, but the appeals were initially dismissed for lack of briefs, later reinstated for Cartwright's cross-appeal. A limited remand was issued for clarification on the trial court’s judgment regarding the claims for treble damages and attorney fees, which had not been addressed.

The trial court, following a remand, ruled that Cartwright needed to prove BHF knowingly engaged in deceptive practices to succeed in his treble damages claim and request for attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2). Although the court found BHF's work was not completed in a workmanlike manner, it concluded that this did not equate to deceptive practices, leading to the denial of both parties' claims for attorney fees. Cartwright raised four assignments of error, arguing that the court erred in not recognizing BHF's failure to perform work satisfactorily as deceptive acts. He contends that these failures, including unaddressed deficiencies in work performed, justify his claim for triple damages and noneconomic damages based on BHF’s alleged deceptive practices.

According to the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act (OCSPA), suppliers must not engage in unfair or deceptive acts, and intent to deceive is not required for a claim. Actions or statements that mislead consumers are deemed deceptive. The assignment of error is analyzed in two parts, focusing on specific work areas. While breaches of contract can violate the OCSPA, not all breaches qualify as deceptive acts. A breach may be considered deceptive only if committed knowingly. Testimony from Cartwright indicated that he was misled about BHF’s capabilities, specifically regarding moving furniture, which led to damage during the process. Despite some satisfaction with the completed kitchen floor, he noted issues with the repair attempts on the dining room floor, including color mismatches and delays in materials.

Aron believed that Cartwright's kitchen would be empty for his men to install the floor, but found a refrigerator present, which his team was unprepared to move. They attempted to repair the damaged floor, and Aron thought Cartwright was satisfied with their work since he did not raise any further concerns. The testimony indicated that while BHF's work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, there was no evidence of unfair or deceptive practices, leading the trial court to award Cartwright the cost of repairing the dining room floor.

Regarding the proposed tile work in the hallway, Cartwright testified that Aron had requested to propose tile installation while measuring the kitchen. Aron submitted two proposals on August 5, 2010, and Cartwright paid a $750 deposit on August 21, 2010, but did not receive a receipt. Cartwright later communicated that he no longer wanted the tile installed, yet a BHF employee arrived unexpectedly with the tile on January 15, 2011, which Cartwright refused. 

Aron claimed Cartwright signed a contract for the tile work but did not have a copy. The proposals, labeled “PROPOSALS,” included BHF's contact information and referenced the deposit received. Under R.C. 1345.23, home solicitation sales require a written agreement that includes the seller's name and address, a buyer's signature, and a cancellation notice. The proposals did not appear to comply with these requirements.

BHF failed to meet compliance requirements outlined in R.C. 1345.23(A) and (B) by not including the seller’s address and buyer’s signature in their proposals, as well as failing to provide the required cancellation statement and notice of cancellation. This noncompliance constitutes a deceptive act under R.C. 1345.28, which defines deceptive practices related to consumer transactions. Cartwright also argued that BHF violated Ohio Admin. Code 109:4-3-05 and 109:4-3-07. However, BHF did not violate 109:4-3-05 since the service of installing tile had not commenced when Cartwright sent the delivery employee away. In contrast, BHF did violate 109:4-3-07 by accepting a deposit from Cartwright without providing a written receipt that included the necessary details, thus committing a deceptive act. 

The trial court concluded that while BHF's kitchen work was not performed properly, it did not constitute a deceptive act. However, it overlooked other deceptive practices related to the tile work. Cartwright's first assignment of error was partially upheld. In his second assignment of error, he contended that the trial court erred by denying him treble damages, linking them inappropriately to attorney fees. Cartwright argued that the requirement for proving BHF's knowing violation of R.C. Chapter 1345 for treble damages was incorrect and improperly connected to the award of attorney fees per R.C. 1345.09(B) and (F)(2).

A consumer has a cause of action for violations of Chapter 1345 of the Revised Code, allowing for rescission of a transaction or recovery of damages, including treble damages for deceptive practices. Treble damages can be awarded if a court finds a deceptive or unconscionable act, while recovery of attorney fees requires proof that the supplier acted "knowingly" in the violation. The burden of proof for attorney fees is higher than for treble damages. The trial court incorrectly ruled that Cartwright needed to prove the supplier knowingly violated the statute to receive treble damages. However, Cartwright chose to rescind the transaction, which means he could only recover the amounts he paid, not treble damages. The remedies of rescission and damages are mutually exclusive; thus, Cartwright was entitled to a refund of his $750 deposit but not to treble damages. Cartwright's second assignment of error regarding treble damages was found to be without merit. His third assignment of error claimed the trial court erred in not awarding attorney fees, which remains unresolved.

Cartwright argues that proving intent to deceive is unnecessary for entitlement to attorney fees, claiming the trial court incorrectly relied on testimony rather than evidence. He asserts that BHF failed to provide essential documents, such as a written agreement and notice of cancellation rights, which he classifies as deceptive practices under Ohio law. The court may award attorney fees if the supplier knowingly violates the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), with 'knowledge' inferred from objective indicators. Although the trial court did not find BHF in violation of the OCSPA, it is determined that BHF did engage in several deceptive acts, warranting a remand to assess attorney fees. 

Cartwright's fourth assignment of error involves the trial court's failure to grant his request for injunctive relief under R.C. 1345.09(D). The court did not address this request because it found no OCSPA violation; however, since it has been established that BHF did violate the OCSPA, the trial court must now consider the appropriateness of injunctive relief. Ultimately, the judgment is affirmed regarding the awarded amount but reversed concerning BHF's conduct under the OCSPA, directing the trial court to evaluate both attorney fees and injunctive relief on remand.