The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision requiring Joseph Dorger to pay attorney fees to John M. Hill and John Hill Construction, LLC, following a contract dispute. This ruling, made on July 13, 2026, is significant as it reinforces the importance of contractual obligations and the consequences of failing to adhere to them.
The case, Hill v. Dorger (Docket No. CA2025-04-033), began when Dorger and Hill entered into a purchase agreement for two lots in Milford, Ohio. Shortly after signing the agreement, Dorger attempted to back out, claiming a mutual mistake regarding zoning laws. Hill responded by filing a complaint for anticipatory breach of contract, leading to a series of legal proceedings that ultimately resulted in the recent appellate ruling.
In November 2022, Dorger and Hill executed a written purchase agreement for the sale of two lots. However, Dorger soon informed Hill that he was withdrawing from the agreement. In response, Hill filed a legal complaint against Dorger for anticipatory breach of contract. Dorger acknowledged the agreement but argued that a mutual mistake had voided the deal, claiming the sale violated local zoning laws.
The trial court held a bench trial in March 2023, ruling in favor of Hill and ordering Dorger to fulfill the terms of the agreement. Dorger appealed but later withdrew his appeal. Afterward, he filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied, stating that Dorger had not presented valid reasons for his claims. The court ordered him to complete the sale and suggested that Hill could seek attorney fees.
Following the trial court's ruling, Hill filed a motion for attorney fees. The trial court granted this motion, leading to Dorger's second appeal. The appellate court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the trial court had erred in awarding attorney fees to Hill.
The court ruled that the language in the purchase agreement clearly stated that Dorger would be responsible for all additional expenses, including attorney fees, if he failed to vacate the property as agreed. Judge Matthew R. Byrne wrote, "The Agreement's plain language makes Dorger responsible, without exception, for 'all additional expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by [Hill] to take possession as a result of [Dorger's] failure to vacate.'" This statement highlighted the court's reliance on the clear terms of the contract.
The appellate court also noted that Dorger's arguments appeared to be attempts to delay the resolution of the case. The ruling emphasized that parties to contracts are presumed to have read and understood them, reinforcing the principle that individuals must adhere to their contractual commitments.
In its decision, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating that there was no valid reason to find the agreement unenforceable. The court concluded that Dorger's claims lacked merit and that the contract terms were clear and binding.
This ruling has significant implications for future contract disputes in Ohio. It underscores the importance of upholding contractual obligations and the potential consequences for parties who attempt to back out of agreements. Individuals and businesses entering contracts should be aware that they may be held accountable for attorney fees and other expenses if they fail to fulfill their obligations.
Looking ahead, Dorger may have limited options for further appeal. The court's ruling is final unless new grounds for appeal arise, or if there are related cases pending. However, based on the court's strong affirmation of the trial court's decision, it seems unlikely that Dorger will find success in further legal challenges regarding this matter.