The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling in the case of Kolich v. KNL Custom Homes, Inc., affirming the lower court's decision regarding a dispute over home renovations. The court's decision, issued on September 30, 2026, impacts homeowners and contractors involved in home improvement projects, particularly concerning the application of consumer protection laws.
The case arose when Michael and Tonya Kolich purchased a home in 2021 from Todd and Kelly Folden, who are connected to KNL Custom Homes, Inc. The Koliches agreed to an additional $30,000 to the purchase price to renovate their basement, which included adding a bathroom, three bedrooms, and a family room. However, the final cost of the project ballooned to $52,261, leading to a dispute over the additional charges.
After the Koliches refused to pay the extra amount, KNL filed a mechanic’s lien against their property. In response, the Koliches filed a lawsuit against KNL and Todd Folden, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), among other claims. KNL countered with its claims against the Koliches for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The case went to trial, where the jury found in favor of the Koliches on their breach of contract and CSPA claims, awarding them $4,000 in damages and attorney fees. KNL was unsuccessful in its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), leading to the appeal.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Betty Sutton, ruled on several key issues raised by KNL. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny KNL's motion for a directed verdict regarding the CSPA, stating, "the statutory definition of 'home construction service' as it existed when the contract was formed... did not exclude the home improvement project at issue in this case." This ruling is significant as it clarifies the applicability of the CSPA to home improvement projects.
In its analysis, the court noted that the CSPA was amended in 2024 to exclude home construction services, but the Koliches' project took place before that amendment. The court stated that the previous version of the law did not limit the CSPA's application to new construction, thereby allowing the Koliches' claims to proceed.
Furthermore, the court addressed KNL's argument regarding the lack of compensatory damages awarded to the Koliches on their CSPA claim. The court stated that under Ohio law, even in the absence of actual damages, a statutory award of $200 is available if a violation is found. The trial court determined the Koliches were prevailing parties under the CSPA, thus entitled to attorney fees.
Judge Sutton emphasized that the trial court's instructions to the jury adequately covered the definition of "knowingly" in relation to KNL's actions, which KNL argued were not properly submitted to the jury in an interrogatory. The court ruled that this was not an error, as the jury instructions sufficiently addressed the issue.
The decision has important implications for homeowners and contractors in Ohio. It reaffirms that consumer protection laws can apply to home improvement projects and clarifies the legal landscape regarding contractual obligations and consumer rights in home renovations. This ruling may encourage homeowners to pursue claims under the CSPA in similar situations, knowing that they have legal protections in place.
Looking ahead, KNL could potentially seek further appeals, but details about any related cases or future legal actions were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also influence ongoing discussions about consumer protection in the construction industry in Ohio.