Scott v. First Choice Auto Clinic, Inc.

226 N.E.3d 1132

2023-Ohio-3855

Geoffrey P. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.FIRST CHOICE AUTO CLINIC, INC. c/o Brian K. Newsom, statutory agent et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 23AP-48

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Rendered on October 24, 2023

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, (C.P.C. No. 19CV-725).

On brief: E. Ray Critchett, LLC, and E. Ray Critchett, Columbus, for appellee. Argued: E. Ray Critchett.

On brief: Eric E. Willison, Hilliard, for appellants. Argued: Eric E. Willison.

DECISION

JAMISON, J.

{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, First Choice Auto Clinic, Inc. ("First Choice") and Brian K. Newsom, appeal a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Geoffrey P. Scott. For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment in part and reverse it in part, and remand this case.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} Scott owns a 1963 Austin-Healy 3000 Mark II BJ-7 sports convertible. In 2016, Scott decided to restore the car and hired First Choice to assist him in the restoration. Newsom is the owner and operator of First Choice.

{¶ 3} The parties agreed that the project would consist of two phases. In the first phase, First Choice would restore the frame and chassis. First Choice would separate the front and rear bulkheads from the old frame, media blast all steel components, repair and/or remove and replace all corroded components of the front and rear bulkheads, reattach the repaired front and rear bulkheads to the new frame, and install new floor pans. First Choice would then weld, seam seal, and paint with epoxy primer all the components. At that point, First Choice would return the car to Scott so he could reinstall the engine, brakes, transmission, and the suspension, steering, and electrical systems. During the second phase, First Choice was to reinstall the outer "skin" of the car, including the paneling, doors, and front and rear shroud. (Tr. at 35.) Finally, First Choice would paint the car.

{¶ 4} Although Scott asked Newsom to "do the best you can to tell me what you think we are getting into," Newsom did not provide Scott with an estimate for the cost or duration of the restoration project. (Pl.’s Ex. 4.) Newsom, instead, generally cautioned Scott that "[t]he restoration process can be long, expensive, and complicated." (Pl.’s Ex. 3, Restoration Guidelines.) He provided Scott with a document entitled "Restoration Guidelines," which stated that restoration projects were "NOT priced in advance" and were "[b]ooked and worked on [a] limited basis as capacity permits—FLEXIBILITY IS REQUIRED." (Emphasis sic.) (Pl.’s Ex. 3, Restoration Guidelines.)

{¶ 5} Scott delivered the original and new component parts for the restoration project to First Choice in September 2016. Around the same time, Scott paid First Choice a deposit of $2,000. In March 2017, Scott paid First Choice $6,000 for work performed on the project. In April 2017, Scott paid an additional $7,308 after Newsom told him that First Choice had completed phase one of the project. However, when Scott came to pick up the car in May 2017, he discovered that he owed $1,290 more. Scott paid that bill so First Choice would release the car to him. In total, phase one cost Scott $16,598.

{¶ 6} During summer 2017, Scott installed the mechanical systems in the car. Scott returned the car to First Choice for phase two of the restoration project in September 2017.

{¶ 7} On October 13, 2017, Newsom called Scott and told him that "nothing is lining up on your car." (Tr. at 51.) The alignment issues meant that the exterior panels did not align or fit properly on the chassis, the rear shroud blocked the bumper brackets from attaching to the frame, and the doors could not close. Newsom and the body shop manager, Denny Foit, blamed the misalignment on the technician who did the phase one work on the car. Newsom and Foit said that when the technician was determining where to place the bulkheads on the frame during phase one, he "just dropped the rear shroud on the back end of the car without really affixing it in a proper location." (Tr. at 58.) Consequently, the technician welded the front and rear bulkheads in the wrong position on the frame.

{¶ 8} In trying to get the exterior panels to align and fit, First Choice destroyed the left and right inner wings. Newsom told Scott that he needed new ones, and Newsom offered to pay for them. Scott purchased two new inner wings, which cost a total of $325.77, and provided them to Newsom. Newsom did not reimburse Scott. Scott also had to buy new left and right wheel arches when First Choice irreparably damaged the ones it had already installed in an attempt to fix the alignment issues. The new wheel arches cost Scott $1,059.98.

{¶ 9} First Choice ultimately removed and repositioned the rear bulkhead. This fix allowed the bumper brackets to attach to the frame. However, the other alignment problems persisted.

{¶ 10} On November 15, 2017, Scott informed Newsom that he wanted to have the Healy "on the road by March 1." (Pl.’s Ex. 11.) Newsom replied that "[w]e will have it done [before] th[e]n." (Pl.’s Ex. 11.)

{¶ 11} Unfortunately, Newsom did not keep his word. In March 2018, Scott visited First Choice and found his unfinished car under debris and car parts. When Scott asked Newsom when he was going to finish the project, Newsom asked for an additional $5,000 payment. Scott then began looking for another repair shop, and eventually transferred his car to AA Customs. Scott paid AA Customs $8,025 to correct the alignment problems. AA Customs also completed phase two of the restoration project.

{¶ 12} On January 25, 2019, Scott filed suit against defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA"), unjust enrichment, respondeat superior, and fraud or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation. Defendants answered the complaint. Additionally, First Choice filed a counterclaim, which asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.

{¶ 13} Scott moved for summary judgment on his claim for certain violations of CSPA. Defendants did not oppose the motion. In a judgment entry dated October 15, 2019, the trial court granted Scott’s motion. The trial court found defendants committed three deceptive acts or practices that violated the CSPA: (1) defendants failed to provide Scott with a form that included a description of the work to be performed, the estimated completion date, and the anticipated cost of the repairs or services in violation of Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-13(A)(1); (2) defendants failed to obtain authorization from Scott for the anticipated cost of any additional, unforeseen, but necessary repairs or services when the cost of those repairs or services amounted to 10 percent or more (excluding tax) of the original estimate in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-13(C)(2); and (3) defendants allowed eight weeks to elapse after accepting money for services without completing the services, making a full refund, advising Scott of the duration of an extended delay and offering to send a refund in two weeks if so requested, or furnishing services of equal or greater value in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-09(A)(2). The trial court found that issues of fact remained regarding the damage sustained as a result of these violations, which required a trial.

{¶ 14} On May 24, 2021, a trial before a magistrate occurred addressing damages for the CSPA claims, as well as Scott’s remaining claims and First Choice’s counterclaims. The magistrate issued her decision on August 24, 2021. In her decision, the magistrate recommended the trial court find defendants liable for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, respondeat superior, and unjust enrichment. Regarding the CSPA violations, the magistrate found actual damages in the amount of $16,598.00, which the magistrate trebled for a total of $49,794.00. The magistrate also recommended awarding Scott $10,391.75 in attorney fees under the CSPA. Finally, as a result of the negligent workmanship that breached the parties’ contract, the magistrate determined that Scott incurred out-of-pocket expenses of $9,409.00, and recommended an award of damages in that amount.

{¶ 15} Defendants objected to the magistrate’s decision. Scott responded to the objections. On January 24, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment overruling defendants’ objections. The trial court entered judgment in Scott’s favor in the amounts set forth in the magistrate’s decision on February 7, 2022.

{¶ 16} Defendants appealed the February 7, 2022 judgment to this court. We, however, determined that we lacked the subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to review the judgment. Scott v. First Choice Auto Clinic, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 22AP-157, 2022-Ohio-3405, 2022 WL 4482035, ¶ 16. Because the trial court failed to enter judgment on First Choice’s counterclaims, the February 7, 2022 judgment did not resolve all the pending claims. Id. at ¶ 14. To be final and appealable, therefore, the judgment had to include Civ.R. 54(B) language, but it did not. Id. Consequently, we dismissed defendants’ appeal. Id. at ¶ 17.

{¶ 17} After the dismissal of the appeal, the trial court referred the matter to the magistrate to render an amended decision. In her November 7, 2022 amended decision, the magistrate recommended granting judgment in Scott’s favor on First Choice’s counterclaims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. On December 21, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment adopting the magistrate’s amended decision and again entering judgment in Scott’s favor in the amount of $49,794.00 in damages for his CSPA claim, $10,391.75 in attorney fees for his CSPA claim, and $9,409.00 in damages for his breach-of-contract claim. The trial court also entered judgment for Scott on First Choice’s counterclaims.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶...