The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a default judgment against Davos Francois in a case involving Wilberforce University and Project One Globe, LLC. The ruling, issued on October 9, 2026, found that Francois was not properly notified before the judgment was entered. This decision is significant as it highlights the importance of due process in civil cases.
Wilberforce University, a historically Black university located in Ohio, filed a lawsuit against Project One Globe and its president, Davos Francois, after a construction contract for a dormitory went awry. The court's decision affects not only Francois but also the university, which sought to recover damages for alleged fraud and breach of contract.
The dispute began in July 2023 when Wilberforce entered into a contract with Project One for the construction of a dormitory valued at $581,160. The agreement included a performance bond from My Place Finance, which was supposed to guarantee payment to subcontractors and ensure the project was completed. However, by September 2023, Project One had not secured necessary permits and had allegedly misused funds received from Wilberforce.
Following a series of notices regarding non-performance and demands for compliance, Wilberforce filed a complaint in June 2024 against Project One, My Place Finance, and Francois. The university claimed damages for breach of contract, fraud, and other related offenses. Francois was accused of being the alter ego of My Place Finance, which Wilberforce argued was undercapitalized and failed to operate as a legitimate entity.
Francois was served with the complaint, but he did not file a timely response. On November 13, 2024, Wilberforce requested a default judgment against him, claiming he failed to respond to the complaint. The trial court granted this default judgment in June 2025, awarding Wilberforce $1,200,067.50 in damages.
Francois appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred by entering the default judgment without providing him the required seven-day notice as mandated by Ohio Civil Rule 55(A). He contended that he had made an appearance in the case by filing a rebuttal to the claims, which should have entitled him to notice before the judgment was granted.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Mary K. Huffman, reviewed the case and found that Francois had indeed made an appearance by filing his rebuttal. The court stated, "Because it is undisputed that the trial court failed to provide Francois with seven days’ notice and a hearing on Wilberforce’s motion prior to entering default judgment against him, we conclude that the trial court erred when it granted Wilberforce’s motion for default judgment."
The court's ruling emphasized the necessity of following procedural rules in civil litigation, particularly regarding notice and the opportunity to respond. The court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This ruling has broader implications for civil litigation in Ohio. It underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants are given proper notice and an opportunity to defend themselves before a judgment is entered against them. This case serves as a reminder that even in complex legal matters, procedural rights must be upheld.
Going forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen how the trial court will handle the case now that the default judgment has been reversed. Francois may still face the original claims brought by Wilberforce, but he will have the opportunity to respond appropriately.
The court's decision to reverse the default judgment does not preclude the possibility of an appeal by Wilberforce, but as of now, the focus will shift back to the trial court for further action. This case illustrates the complexities of civil litigation and the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure fairness in the legal process.