The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Galloway v. Lichtig, vacating a trial court's order that awarded attorney fees to a real estate firm following a property dispute. The decision impacts the ability of parties to claim attorney fees in similar contractual disputes, particularly regarding the timing of such claims. This ruling affects the Galloways, who were appealing the trial court's decision, as well as the CBRE parties, who were seeking the fees.

The Galloways, Mark and Susan Galloway, along with their trust, had entered into a listing agreement with CBRE, Inc. and its representatives, including Howard Lichtig, to sell a 65-acre property in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. After selling the property in 2017, the Galloways filed a lawsuit against the CBRE parties in 2020, which they later dismissed. In 2023, they refiled their claims, including breach of contract and fraud. The trial court ruled in favor of the CBRE parties in September 2025, leading to a request for attorney fees from the CBRE parties.

The trial court granted the CBRE parties a significant sum in attorney fees and costs, totaling over $1.2 million. However, the Galloways contested this ruling, arguing that the request for attorney fees was barred by the principle of res judicata, which prevents the same issue from being tried again once it has been judged on its merits.

The court filing detailed that the Galloways claimed the CBRE parties could not seek attorney fees because they had not raised the issue during the original proceedings. The Galloways contended that the CBRE parties' motion for fees was a compulsory counterclaim that should have been presented in the earlier trial. The court noted that Ohio law generally requires all claims arising from the same transaction to be litigated together.

In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Deena R. Calabrese, found that the Galloways were correct in their assertion. The court stated, "The CBRE parties’ request for contractual attorneys’ fees is not a collateral issue," and emphasized that the request for fees should have been made during the initial trial process. The court ultimately ruled that the CBRE parties were barred from recovering attorney fees because they did not assert their claim before the trial court issued a final judgment.

The court's decision to vacate the trial court's order means that the CBRE parties will not receive the attorney fees they sought. This ruling reinforces the importance of timely asserting claims for attorney fees in legal proceedings, particularly in contractual disputes.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It clarifies that claims for attorney fees must be raised during the litigation process and cannot be introduced after a final judgment has been made. This decision may influence how future parties approach claims for attorney fees in Ohio, ensuring they are mindful of the timing and procedural requirements.

In conclusion, the Ohio Court of Appeals' ruling in Galloway v. Lichtig serves as a reminder of the necessity for parties to assert all claims in a timely manner during litigation. The decision not only affects the Galloways and the CBRE parties but also sets a precedent for how attorney fees can be claimed in future cases.

Looking ahead, the CBRE parties may consider their options for appeal, although the court's ruling appears to be definitive regarding the issues raised in this case. There are currently no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.