Background
Worch Lumber, Inc. filed suit against homeowner Cathryn M. Fetzer for breach of contract, action on account, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, alleging Fetzer owed $88,518.54 for improvements made to her residence. Fetzer counterclaimed under Ohio’s Home Construction Service Suppliers Act (“HCSSA”), R.C. 4722.01 et seq., alleging that Worch violated several provisions of the Act. She argued that Worch’s contracts were void or voidable under the HCSSA and sought the statutory remedies provided thereunder, including declaratory relief that no enforceable contract had been formed.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Fetzer’s summary judgment, granted partial summary judgment to Worch by extinguishing Fetzer’s HCSSA counterclaims, and certified the HCSSA applicability issue for interlocutory appeal under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Fetzer appealed on the sole certified issue of whether the HCSSA applied to her transaction with Worch.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. The court analyzed the statutory definition of “home construction service supplier” under R.C. 4722.01(A) and concluded that Worch Lumber was primarily a material supplier that sold and delivered building materials, not a contractor performing construction services on a residential property. The HCSSA is designed to protect homeowners from contractors who perform construction work on their homes, not from companies that supply materials.
The court examined the contracts attached to the complaint and determined that Worch’s role was to supply lumber and other building materials, even though some delivery and incidental installation may have occurred. The court found this insufficient to transform Worch into a “home construction service supplier” within the meaning of the statute.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s HCSSA applies to “home construction service suppliers” who perform construction services, not to material suppliers whose primary role is selling and delivering building materials.
- The fact that a material supplier provides some incidental installation does not automatically bring the transaction within the scope of the HCSSA.
- Interlocutory appeals under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) are limited to the specific issue certified; the Second District addressed only the HCSSA applicability question.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of Ohio’s HCSSA for construction industry participants and homeowners alike. Material suppliers can take comfort that routine supply transactions — even those involving some delivery or incidental installation — do not subject them to the HCSSA’s consumer-protection requirements. Conversely, homeowners asserting HCSSA claims must demonstrate that the entity they contracted with was performing “home construction services” rather than merely supplying materials. Practitioners should carefully analyze the nature of the transaction when advising clients on HCSSA applicability.