A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified when a party involved in a lawsuit under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act can receive attorney fees. The court decided that attorney fees are only awarded if the party receives actual damages or injunctive relief, not merely a favorable judgment.
The decision was made in a 4-3 vote concerning Cincinnati property owners who sued a contractor. Although the jury found that the contractor had engaged in deceptive trade practices, it awarded no damages for this violation. However, in a related breach of contract claim within the same case, the jury awarded $30,604 to the property owners.
Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote for the majority, stating that typically, "the losing party in a lawsuit does not have to pay the prevailing party’s attorney fees unless a specific law provides for it." He noted that while R.C. 4165.03 allows for attorney fee awards to prevailing parties, it does not define what constitutes such a party. Justice DeWine explained that because the property owners sought actual damages under their claim, they needed to obtain those damages to be considered prevailing.
“This conclusion is required by the statute and is consistent with the well-established notion that the plaintiff must secure some relief that changes the legal relationship of the parties to be a prevailing party,” he stated.
This ruling overturned an earlier decision by the First District Court of Appeals which had granted attorney fees based on winning judgment alone without any damage award.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer and Joseph T. Deters agreed with Justice DeWine's opinion.
In dissent, Justice Jennifer Brunner argued against this interpretation of "prevailing party," suggesting that winning parties should not need damages or injunctions to qualify for attorney fees under R.C. 4165.03. She pointed out inconsistencies where minor damage awards could lead to significant fee recoveries while larger judgments without direct damage awards would not qualify.
“Several federal courts have held that a party that obtains damages on a nonfee-eligible claim and a favorable judgment but no damages on a related fee-eligible claim is still a ‘prevailing party,’” she wrote in her dissenting opinion joined by Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Melody Stewart.
The case reference is Goomai v. H&E Ent., LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5711.