Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
SHAWN GRILL, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
ARTISTIC RENOVATIONS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Dustin S. Lewis Dan A. Morell Dan
Morell & Associates, Co., L.P.A.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES For Artistic Renovations of Ohio,
L.L.C., and Ken Perrin P. Kohl Schneider Abigail A. Greiner
Colleen A. Mountcastle Gallagher Sharp, L.L.P. Clark D. Rice
Koeth, Rice & Leo, Co., L.P.A.
All Seasons Appraisals, L.L.C. Cynthia Lammert Coakley
Lammert Co., L.P.A. Richard T. Lobas.
Huntington Bancshares, Inc. Kathleen A. Nitschke Giffin &
BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Laster Mays, P.J., and Keough, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE.
Plaintiffs-appellants, Shawn and Brooke Grill
("appellants"), appeal the grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Artistic
Renovations of Ohio, L.L.C., and its owner, Ken Perrin
(collectively "Artistic"). Appellants argue that
the trial court erred by applying the doctrine of res
judicata and denying their Civ.R. 56(F) motion for an
extension of time to file a brief in opposition to
Artistic's motion for summary judgment. After a thorough
review of the record and law, this court affirms.
Factual and Procedural History
In 2013, appellants purchased a home in Independence, Ohio.
They intended to substantially remodel the home before moving
in. Appellants enlisted Artistic as the general contractor to
complete the construction and remodeling work. The parties
entered into a home construction/remodeling contract on
January 28, 2014. A dispute arose regarding Artistic's
work on the project.
The First Lawsuit
As a result of the dispute regarding Artistic's
construction/remodeling work, appellants filed a complaint
against Artistic and Sue Perrin on October 3, 2014, in
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-14-833782. Appellants asserted causes of
actions for breach of contract, violations of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, alter
ego, and negligence. On December 31, 2014, Artistic filed an
answer and counterclaims against appellants for breach of
contract and quantum meruit, seeking to recover for work
completed on the project that appellants had not compensated
Despite the fact that Artistic counterclaimed for breach of
contract and quantum meruit, appellants dismissed their
complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) on January 12, 2016.
A bench trial commenced on Artistic's counterclaims on
January 20, 2016. At the close of trial, the trial court
issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 25,
2016. The trial court concluded that Artistic failed to
substantially complete the project within a reasonable time
period, and thus, was not entitled to contractual damages.
The trial court held that Artistic was entitled to an award
in quantum meruit/unjust enrichment based on the reasonable
value of the work it performed on appellants' property.
The trial court awarded Artistic $18, 462.95.
On April 25, 2016, appellants filed an appeal challenging the
trial court's judgment. Shawn Grill v. Artistic
Renovations of Ohio L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
104383. On May 3, 2016, appellants voluntarily dismissed the
The Second Lawsuit
On December 8, 2016, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-16-872875,
appellants filed a complaint against Artistic, All Seasons
Appraisals L.L.C. ("All Seasons"), and Huntington
Bank ("Huntington"). Appellants asserted causes of
action against Artistic and Perrin for breach of contract,
breach of warranty, violations of the Ohio Consumer
Protection Act, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the
performance, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment. Appellants asserted causes of action against All
Seasons for breach of contract and negligence. Appellants
asserted causes of action against Huntington for breach of
contract and respondeat superior.
On February 17, 2017, Artistic filed an answer and a
counterclaim alleging that appellants engaged in frivolous
conduct pursuant to R.C. 2323.51(A)(2). On the same date,
Artistic filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that appellants' claims were barred by res
judicata. On March 7, 2017, the trial court converted
Artistic's motion for judgment on the pleadings to a
motion for summary judgment.
Appellants filed a response to Artistic's counterclaim on
March 13, 2017. Artistic supplemented its motion for summary
judgment on April 3, 2017.
On April 26, 2017, appellants filed a motion for an extension
of time to respond to Artistic's motion for summary
judgment. Artistic opposed the motion for an extension of
time on April 28, 2017.
On May 1, 2017, the trial court denied appellants' motion
for an extension of time to respond to Artistic's motion
for summary judgment. The trial court ordered appellants to
file their brief in opposition to Artistic's motion for
summary judgment on or before May 3, 2017.
On May 3, 2017, appellants filed a brief in opposition to
Artistic's motion for summary judgment and a motion for
an extension of time pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F). On May 11,
2017, Artistic filed a reply brief in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
On May 13, 2017, the trial court granted Artistic's
motion for summary judgment, concluding that appellants'
claims against Artistic were barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. It is from this judgment that appellants filed the
instant appeal on June 9, 2017.
Appellants assign ...