Breach of Contract Cases

Sanctions reduce monetary obligation to judgment hearing R.C. 2705.02 res judicata R.C. 4711 standing and Civ.R. 25. Issues raised and addressed in prior appeals are barred by res judicata. A union has standing to file an injunction on behalf of its members where at least one member suffers immediate or threatened injury as a result of the contested action. Where the complaint named the defendant-appellant City's mayor and fire chief in their official capacities as defendants, the defendant-appellant City was not prejudiced by the fact that the city no longer employed the named mayor and fire chief. Under Civ.R. 25, the individuals currently holding those official positions were automatically substituted for the named defendants and could be called as witnesses on behalf of the City.

The plaintiff, who had been hired by the defendants to perform certain home construction site work, sought to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, after the defendants failed to make an installment payment under the parties' contract. The contract set forth a schedule of six installment payments. Work was scheduled to begin on March 9, 2015, and was to be completed on May 11, 2015. As a result of delays, work did not begin until May, 2015. In October, 2015, the plaintiff ceased working for the defendants; the plaintiff maintained that he was termi- nated whereas the defendants claimed the plaintiff walked off the job. The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to the fourth installment payment. The defendants then hired V Co. to complete the work. The plaintiff thereafter brought the present action seeking damages for the defen- dants' failure to remit the fourth installment payment. The defendants filed a counterclaim. Following a trial to the court, the trial court ren- dered judgment for the defendants on the complaint and on their counter- claim, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly determined that the contract violated the Home Improvement Act (§ 20-418 et seq.) and was unenforceable against the defendants; the plaintiff failed to follow the statutorily (§ 42-135a (1) and (2)) prescribed language and form for the cancellation notice in the contract and failed to furnish the defendants with a detachable notice of cancellation as required by § 42-135a (2) and (3), and these failures amounted to material noncompliance with the act. 2. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff caused the delay in the completion of the work was not clearly erroneous; the court had before it the testimony of the defendants' expert regarding the percentage of work completed by the plaintiff and how much work was left to complete, which the court was free to credit, and the court did not have to credit the plaintiff's testimon

REPORTED ORDER Granting Motion to Remand Granting [8] Motion to Stay. The plaintiffs claim is REMANDED to the Secretary of the Army, who is directed to submit the matter to the ABCMR. The plaintiff shall apply to the ABCMR by filing a DD Form 149 with the ABCMR on or before 9/4/2020. The ABCMR shall determine by 11/30/2020 whether the Army committed an error or injustice. The defendant shall file by 12/14/2020, a status report. The ABCMR shall render its decision by 2/22/2021. The defendant shall file a status report informing the Court of the ultimate determination of the ABCMR by 3/8/2021. The case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Richard A. Hertling. (agg) Service on parties made.

The trial court erred when it granted Appellees' motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).