A party claiming to be harmed under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act can receive attorney fees only if the party received actual damages or injunctive relief, not just a judgment in their favor, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that a pair of Cincinnati property owners were not entitled to attorney fees from a contractor they sued. Even though a jury found the contractor committed a deceptive trade practice, the jury awarded $0 in damages for the violation. In a separate claim for breach of contract in the same case, the jury awarded the property owners $30,604.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that, generally, the losing party in a lawsuit does not have to pay the prevailing party’s attorney fees unless a specific law provides for it. The Deceptive Trade Practices Act, R.C. 4165.03, does allow for an attorney fee award to the prevailing party, but the law does not define “prevailing party.”

Because the property owners sought actual damages under the deceptive trade practices claim, they had to obtain actual damages to be the prevailing party, Justice DeWine explained.

“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 wrote.

The decision reversed a First District Court of Appeals ruling, which held that the property owners were entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party because they won a judgment in their favor, regardless of whether they were awarded any damages.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer and Joseph T. Deters joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote that while R.C. 4165.03 does not define “prevailing party,” the context of the law does not indicate that the winning party must receive damages or an injunction. Because the property owners won $30,604 from the contractors in the same dispute, it is clear they were the prevailing party, she wrote. The dissent stated the Court majority would allow a party who won $1 in damages to collect thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Yet, a party who won a judgment in their favor under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and a monetary judgment in the same case on another claim would receive nothing.

“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,’” the dissent stated.

Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Melody Stewart joined Justice Brunner’s opinion.

2023-1541. Goomai v. H&E Ent., LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5711.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.