Case Updates: Ohio Courts Split Over a Homeowner’s Right to Cancel and Recover Damages

A recent Ohio appellate decision highlights an important disagreement over the remedies available to homeowners in residential-construction disputes.

The issue arises when a contractor fails to provide the written three-day cancellation notice required by Ohio’s Home Solicitation Sales Act (“HSSA”). When the required notice is omitted, the homeowner’s right to cancel generally remains open. The disputed question is whether exercising that right prevents the homeowner from also pursuing damages under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”).

The Tenth District Requires an Election

In Allphase Restoration & Construction v. Youngblood, 2015-Ohio-4043, the Tenth District held that the remedies under the HSSA and CSPA are mutually exclusive. Under that approach, a homeowner who cancels the contract and seeks a refund under the HSSA cannot also pursue CSPA damages arising from the same transaction.

Trial courts applying that rule have generally held that when a homeowner cancels a contract because the contractor failed to provide the required notice, the homeowner may recover payments made under the contract but cannot also pursue additional breach-of-contract or CSPA remedies arising from the same transaction. The contractor may still be permitted to pursue an alternative claim for unjust enrichment based on the value of any benefit conferred.

For cases in Franklin County, this creates an important strategic consideration: sending a cancellation notice may be treated as an election that limits the homeowner to the remedies available under the HSSA.

The Fifth District Takes a Different Approach

In Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders, LLC, 2026-Ohio-2811, the Fifth District rejected the idea that an HSSA cancellation automatically eliminates CSPA remedies.

The court adopted the reasoning of the Seventh District in Santos v. Buckeye 5, LLC and distinguished cancellation from rescission. Cancellation ends future contractual obligations. Rescission attempts to unwind the entire transaction and return the parties to their original positions. The Fifth District concluded that the statutes do not state that cancellation replaces the remedies otherwise available under the CSPA.

That distinction mattered because the roofing work in Cetorelli had already been completed. There were no meaningful future obligations left to cancel, and the substantial changes to the home made rescission impractical. The court therefore held that the homeowner’s cancellation notices did not prevent her from pursuing CSPA damages.

The Fifth District affirmed a total judgment of $123,218.50, which included treble damages, attorney fees, and costs based on several HSSA and CSPA violations.

Why This Split Matters

The difference is significant.

Under the Tenth District’s interpretation, a homeowner may be required to choose between canceling the contract and pursuing CSPA damages. Under the Fifth District’s interpretation, sending a cancellation notice does not necessarily surrender claims for actual damages, treble damages, or attorney fees.

As a result, similar facts may produce different available remedies depending on where the case is filed. It also means that a cancellation letter should not be sent—or answered—without considering the controlling appellate law and the effect that the letter may have on later claims.

Homeowners and contractors involved in an Ohio residential-construction dispute should obtain legal advice before assuming that cancellation is either a complete remedy or a complete defense.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The available claims and remedies depend on the controlling appellate district and the particular facts of the dispute.