Daniel Matusicky | Kohrman Jackson & Krantz
On May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio passed on an opportunity to settle a long-standing legal question: Does Ohio law require a trial court to conduct an oral hearing before compelling arbitration under R.C. 2711.03?
Unfortunately, relying on the “Party Presentation Principle” the court vacated the decision of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, leaving the legal landscape muddy for now.
The Background: Homeowners vs. Builder
The case arose from a construction dispute in Medina County. Homeowners Matthew and Katherine Snyder hired Old World Classics to build their home. In 2023, the Snyders sued Old World, alleging fraud, breach of contract and other claims.
In response, Old World moved to compel arbitration, pointing to a clause in the contract requiring disputes to be resolved outside of court. The trial court agreed and ordered the parties to arbitrate.
But the Snyders appealed, arguing that the arbitration clause was invalid because they were fraudulently induced into agreeing to it. The Ninth District sided with the Snyders —not on the fraud issue, but because the trial court didn’t hold an oral hearing before enforcing arbitration. According to the appellate court, that was a problem under R.C. 2711.03.
Supreme Court: Not So Fast
Old World appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that courts across the state are divided on whether R.C. 2711.03 actually requires a hearing. The Supreme Court took up the case, raising hopes it would finally clarify the law.
Instead, the Court sidestepped the main issue. It ruled that neither party had asked the trial court for a hearing, and neither raised the lack of a hearing as an error on appeal. Based on the “Party Presentation Principle” (Epcon Communities Franchising, LLC v. Wilcox Dev. Group, LLC) — which says courts shouldn’t rule on issues the parties didn’t raise — the justices said the Ninth District overstepped. The Supreme Court vacated the decision and sent the case back to the appellate court to consider the Snyders’ fraud claim.
So, Where Does That Leave Us?
Still guessing. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision leaves unresolved whether trial courts must hold a hearing before deciding to compel arbitration. For now, the safest move for parties opposing arbitration is to explicitly request a hearing under R.C. 2711.03.
Until the Supreme Court takes up the issue again – and decides it – this procedural step may make all the difference in keeping a case in court. It may also pressure a party seeking to enforce an arbitration provision to actively engage in meaningful settlement discussions.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.