If you hire a contractor to repair or remodel your home and the work goes badly, which Ohio law protects you? The answer used to be straightforward. Today, after a series of legislative changes and court decisions, it is more complicated than most homeowners realize. A recent decision from Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals — Orion Management, Inc. v. Kaeka, 2025-Ohio-1047 — sheds important light on this question.
Two Different Laws, Two Different Frameworks
Ohio has two main statutes that can apply when a homeowner has a dispute with a contractor: the Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”), found in R.C. Chapter 1345, and the Home Construction Service Suppliers Act (“HCSA”), found in R.C. Chapter 4722.
The CSPA was enacted in 1972 and is the broader of the two laws. It prohibits suppliers from committing unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices in connection with consumer transactions. It covers a wide range of situations — from auto purchases to debt collection to home repairs. If a violation is proven, consumers can recover their actual economic damages plus up to $5,000 in noneconomic damages. If the specific act or practice has previously been declared deceptive or unconscionable by rule or court decision, treble damages may be available. The CSPA also includes the Home Solicitation Sales Act (“HSSA”), which provides additional protections when a seller solicits a consumer at their home.
The HCSA was enacted in 2012. It was specifically designed to regulate contracts between homeowners and home construction service suppliers for projects exceeding $25,000. The HCSA imposes its own set of requirements on contractors, including written contract requirements, limits on down payments (no more than 10% before work begins), prohibitions against misrepresenting work or materials, and requirements that work be performed in a “workmanlike manner.”
The Critical Distinction: Which Law Applies?
Here is what many homeowners do not realize: if your contract with a contractor qualifies as a “home construction service contract” under R.C. 4722.01, then the CSPA does not apply to that transaction. The CSPA’s definition of “consumer transaction” in R.C. 1345.01(A) specifically excludes “transactions involving a home construction service contract as defined in section 4722.01 of the Revised Code.”
This matters because the two statutes offer different protections and different remedies. The CSPA has been interpreted by Ohio courts for over 50 years and provides well-established consumer remedies, including the potential for treble damages and attorney’s fees. The HCSA is newer and its remedies, while still significant, operate under a different framework.
The Orion v. Kaeka Decision
The Ninth District’s decision in Orion Management, Inc. v. Kaeka, 2025-Ohio-1047, directly addressed which statute applies when a contractor is hired to rebuild a damaged home.
The facts were straightforward: two homeowners purchased a house in Akron. Before they could move in, a storm caused a large tree to crash through the roof, destroying the family room. An insurance restoration contractor, Orion Management, arrived at the scene and signed the homeowners to a contract to remove the tree and rebuild the damaged portions of the house. The project was estimated to cost over $70,000.
The work did not go well. The homeowners alleged that Orion failed to properly protect the house from rain, causing additional water damage throughout the property. They also believed that Orion installed the new roof at the wrong slope, resulting in a noticeably lower ceiling than the original cathedral ceiling. The homeowners eventually halted the work and the relationship deteriorated. Orion filed a mechanic’s lien and sued for breach of contract. The homeowners counterclaimed under the CSPA, the HSSA, and the HCSA, among other claims.
The trial court granted Orion summary judgment on the CSPA counterclaim, finding that the contract was a home construction service contract governed by the HCSA, not a consumer transaction governed by the CSPA. The Ninth District affirmed.
What About Repairs and Remodels?
The most significant legal question in the case was whether the HCSA applied to home repairs and rebuilds, or only to new construction. When the HCSA was originally enacted, it defined “home construction service” as “the construction of a residential building.” The statute did not define the word “construction.”
The Fifth and Eleventh District Courts of Appeals had previously held that “construction” meant only new construction, relying on a 1994 Ohio Supreme Court decision, State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Natl. Lime & Stone Co., that defined “construction” in the context of environmental regulations as “[t]he creation of something new, as distinguished from the repair or improvement of something already existing.” Under those rulings, home repair and remodeling contracts remained under the CSPA.
The Ninth District disagreed. The court found that the Supreme Court’s Celebrezze definition was specific to the administrative code provision at issue in that case and was not intended to supply a universal definition. The court noted that the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “construction” relied upon in Celebrezze became obsolete in 1999 and that the current definition — “[t]he act of building by combining or arranging parts or elements” — does not distinguish between new construction and repairs.
The Ninth District also pointed to the HCSA’s definition of “owner,” which includes “a tenant who occupies the dwelling unit on which the home construction service is performed.” The court reasoned that if the HCSA only applied to new construction, that provision would make no sense — a tenant cannot occupy a dwelling that has not yet been built.
Additionally, the court noted that the original house bill that became the HCSA had initially restricted “home construction services” to “the construction of a new residential building or the substantial rehabilitation of a residential building.” The legislature chose not to adopt that narrower language.
The 2024 Amendment Settles the Question
Effective September 2024, the legislature amended R.C. 4722.01(B) to explicitly define “home construction service” as “the construction of a residential building, including the creation of a new structure and the repair, improvement, remodel, or renovation of an existing structure.” While the Ninth District noted this amendment was not applicable to the contract at issue in Orion v. Kaeka (which predated the change), the court observed that it “eliminates any doubt as to whether the legislature intended the HCSA to apply only to new construction.”
The Dissent
It is worth noting that the decision was not unanimous. Judge Carr dissented in part, arguing that prior to the 2024 amendment, every appellate court that had addressed the issue concluded that “home construction service” did not include remodeling. Judge Carr viewed the 2024 amendment as a change in the law, not a clarification of existing intent. Under Judge Carr’s view, the homeowners’ contract would have fallen under the CSPA.
What This Means for Ohio Homeowners
If you are hiring a contractor for work on your home that will exceed $25,000 — whether it is a new build, a remodel, a renovation, or a repair — that contract is almost certainly governed by the HCSA, not the CSPA. This has several practical implications:
First, your contractor is required to provide you with a written contract that includes specific information: the contractor’s name, address, phone number, and taxpayer ID; a general description of the work; anticipated start and completion dates; the total estimated cost; insurance certificate showing at least $250,000 in general liability coverage; and the dated signatures of both parties. Cost-plus contracts are exempt from some of these requirements.
Second, the contractor cannot collect more than 10% as a down payment before work begins (with exceptions for special order items).
Third, if the project encounters unforeseen excess costs totaling more than $5,000 over the life of the contract, the contractor must provide you with a written or oral estimate of those excess costs before performing the additional work.
Fourth, the HCSA prohibits contractors from representing that work was performed when it was not, misrepresenting the quality of work or materials, intentionally understating costs, and failing to perform work in a workmanlike manner.
If you believe your contractor has violated these requirements or performed substandard work on your home, you should consult with an attorney who understands the distinction between these two statutes. The law that applies to your situation will determine your available remedies.
If you have a consumer law or home construction dispute, call Zachary B. Simonoff at 440.253.9459 to discuss your situation.
Write a comment: