Reminder from Recent Appellate Decisions: Contract Provisions Will Be Enforced as Written

Parties to construction contracts sometimes will agree to onerous provisions, despite their inclination to object to them, with the thought of “how likely is that to occur?”  Three recent court decisions highlight why parties need to assume the “worst case scenario” before agreeing to any contractual provisions, since they will be construed according to their plain meaning.  Courts will not relieve a party of the consequences of a negotiated contract – even if the results are harsh.

In the first case, decided October 14, 2025, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that a mechanic’s lien affidavit was invalid because it was not properly sworn to with a notary. In Grinder v. Schaaf, the notary provision in the lien affidavit only indicated that it was “acknowledged” before the notary – not that it was sworn as required by R.C. 1311.06(A). Because an acknowledgement is not made under oath, the lien was invalid. This was the case even though the affidavit provided that the affiant was “first duly sworn” at the beginning because the notary did not indicate an oath was administered (in the jurat at the end). Sometimes it is important to swear!

In the second case decided October 23, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of an action that was not brought within 180 days of notice of the claim as required by the construction contract at issue.

In Castle Construction Co. v. Buretta Construction Co., Castle sent a demand for arbitration to Buretta on March 13, 2020, but did not file any action until it filed litigation on July 14, 2023.  Because the contract required any arbitration to be filed within 180 days of the written demand, the claim was barred (in addition to being brought in the wrong form – litigation instead of arbitration). The Court of Appeals held:

Parties to a contract may agree to limit the time for bringing an action to a period less than provided by the relevant statute of limitations. So long as the shortened period is reasonable and the contract language is clear and unambiguous, the provision may be enforceable.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that an agreed 180-day time limit was reasonable.  No one should sign a contract assuming that a court will strike down a provision that effectively shortened the statute of limitations from a period of at least six years down to six months.

In the third case decided November 24, 2025, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order disqualifying the lawyer for the contractor because the lawyer had not only prepared but had signed and recorded an affidavit for mechanic’s lien – despite their being a lien waiver in the applicable contract.

In Shoregate Towers NS, LLC v. Ruple Builders, Inc., the trial court found that the lawyer would be a material witness in the action (and thus disqualified from also acting as counsel) because only the lawyer could testify to his intent and knowledge in drafting and executing the lien. Contractual waivers of lien rights are valid and enforceable in Ohio, which could subject the lawyer to civil claims.

Each of these decisions demonstrates, quite clearly, that Courts will not relieve parties of their contractual agreements – even if those agreements result in hardship or unfavorable consequences. This makes it all the more critical that parties to construction contracts vigorously negotiate for fair terms – otherwise the “unfair” terms will be enforced.

For more information on these developments, see contact Mark L. Rodio or any member of Frantz Ward’s Construction Practice Group.