Certified Conflict Accepted on Whether the Pre‑Amendment Home Construction Service Suppliers Act Covers Repairs and Renovations

Introduction

09/16/2026 Case Announcements, 2026-Ohio-3595 is the Supreme Court of Ohio’s September 16, 2026 release of outcomes across multiple matters—one merit decision with an opinion, numerous extraordinary-writ cases resolved without opinions, and several procedural rulings.

Although most entries are summary dispositions, the announcements identify a development with broad, forward-looking significance: in Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer, the Court determined that a conflict exists and ordered briefing on a statewide question about the original, pre-amendment scope of the Home Construction Service Suppliers Act. The Court framed the issue as whether the statute’s pre-amendment definition of “home construction service” (defined as “the construction of a residential building”) applies to contracts involving repairs, improvements, remodeling, or renovation of existing residences, or instead applies only to new residential construction.

The announcements also note that, in CheckFree Servs. Corp. v. Harris, the Court vacated a Board of Tax Appeals decision in part and remanded, and that a number of mandamus/procedendo/prohibition/habeas filings were dismissed on pleading or jurisdictional grounds without opinions.

Summary of the Opinion / Decisions Announced

  • Merit decision with opinion: CheckFree Servs. Corp. v. Harris (BTA No. 2019-43) — decision vacated in part; cause remanded.
    Note: The announcements do not reproduce the slip opinion’s reasoning; they report the disposition only.
  • Merit decisions without opinions: Multiple extraordinary-writ actions were dismissed, typically after motions to dismiss or judgment on the pleadings (e.g., State ex rel. Wenning v. Columbus City Council; State ex rel. Little Turtle Civic Assn., Inc. v. Klein; State ex rel. Curley v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals Judges; Ezeh v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.; and others), reflecting the Court’s frequent use of summary procedures where pleadings do not establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
  • Motion and procedural rulings: The Court addressed matters such as unsealing records (State v. Ford), requests for rulings/reconsideration (Blair v. State), and it granted alternative writs and set evidence/briefing schedules in mandamus cases (State ex rel. Penrose Ents., Ltd. v. Cincinnati; State ex rel. K.C. Speed Invests., L.L.C. v. Cincinnati; State ex rel. Mason v. Burger).
  • Certified conflict accepted: Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer — conflict recognized; parties ordered to brief the certified question concerning the pre-amendment Home Construction Service Suppliers Act.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The announcements’ most concrete cluster of cited authorities appears in the conflict-certification entry. In Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer, the Supreme Court identified the “conflict cases” addressing the same statutory question in different appellate districts:

  • Orion Mgt., Inc. v Kaeka, 2025-Ohio-1047 (9th Dist.)
  • Beder v. Cerha Kitchen & Bath Design Studio, L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-4463 (11th Dist.)
  • Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc., 2023-Ohio-229 (5th Dist.)
  • A1 Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Thomas, 2025-Ohio-1047 (9th Dist.)

While the announcements do not summarize those cases’ reasoning, their function here is procedural and structural: they are the decisions that purportedly reflect divergent interpretations of whether the pre-amendment statutory phrase “construction of a residential building” reaches work on existing structures (repairs/remodeling/renovations) or is limited to new builds. By listing these cases as the “conflict cases,” the Court signals that the question is live, recurring, and presently fractured among districts—precisely the circumstance that conflict jurisdiction is designed to address.

Legal Reasoning

Because this document is a case-announcement entry rather than a full opinion (and because many listed matters were resolved without opinions), the Court’s reasoning is largely implicit in its procedural choices. Two features nonetheless stand out:

  1. Conflict recognition and issue framing (Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer). The Court “determines that a conflict exists” and then tightly frames the question for briefing: whether the pre-amendment definition of “home construction service” (“the construction of a residential building”) encompasses repair/improvement/remodel/renovation contracts. This step is legally significant even before any merits ruling: it identifies the precise “rule of law” question the Court intends to resolve statewide and limits the parties’ briefing to that determinative interpretive fork.
  2. Gatekeeping in extraordinary-writ practice. The Court repeatedly dismisses mandamus/procedendo/prohibition/habeas filings at the pleading stage or on dispositive motions. That pattern reflects the well-established principle that extraordinary writs are not substitutes for ordinary remedies and are often resolved summarily when the relator’s pleadings do not show a clear legal right/clear legal duty (mandamus), an entitlement to proceed to judgment (procedendo), a clear lack of jurisdiction (prohibition), or a legally cognizable basis for custody relief (habeas corpus).

The single “merit decision with opinion” noted—CheckFree Servs. Corp. v. Harris—is reported only by its result (vacated in part and remanded). Without the slip opinion’s text, no responsible account can be given here of the specific doctrinal holdings, statutory construction, or evidentiary/tax standards the Court applied in that tax appeal.

Impact

The most immediate prospective impact flows from the accepted conflict in Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer. If the Court ultimately holds that the pre-amendment statute covers repairs/remodels/renovations, the Act’s compliance obligations and remedies (whatever they may be under the statute as applied in those cases) could attach to a broader range of home-improvement transactions that historically may have been treated as outside the “construction of a residential building.” If the Court holds the opposite—that the pre-amendment language is limited to new residential construction—then claims and defenses premised on the Act would be restricted accordingly for pre-amendment contracts, and parties would need to look to other statutory or common-law frameworks for disputes arising from repair/remodel work.

Separately, the repeated summary dismissals in extraordinary-writ cases underscore a practical impact on litigants: the Court continues to enforce strict threshold requirements and procedural rules (including dismissal mechanisms under the Supreme Court Rules of Practice), which can deter defective filings and channel disputes into standard appellate routes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Conflict exists” (certified conflict): Ohio’s Supreme Court can accept a certified conflict when different courts of appeals apply different legal rules to the same legal question. Acceptance does not decide the merits; it means the Court will resolve the question to create uniform statewide law.
  • Mandamus: An extraordinary order compelling a public official/body to perform a clear legal duty when the relator has a clear legal right and lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  • Procedendo: An extraordinary order directing a lower court to proceed to judgment or issue a decision; it does not dictate what the decision must be.
  • Prohibition: An extraordinary order preventing a court from acting beyond its jurisdiction.
  • Alternative writ: A preliminary writ that typically sets a schedule for evidence and briefing, reflecting that the case warrants fuller development before final resolution.
  • “Vacated in part and remanded”: The Court set aside part of the lower tribunal’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s instructions.
  • Judgment on the pleadings: A dispositive ruling based solely on the pleadings, appropriate when (even taking the opponent’s allegations as true) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

The September 16, 2026 announcements are primarily procedural, but they highlight a consequential statewide issue poised for merits resolution: in Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a certified conflict and framed the question whether the pre-amendment Home Construction Service Suppliers Act—defining “home construction service” as “the construction of a residential building”— extends to repair, improvement, remodeling, or renovation of existing residential structures. The Court’s eventual resolution will harmonize divergent appellate approaches reflected in Orion Mgt., Inc. v Kaeka, Beder v. Cerha Kitchen & Bath Design Studio, L.L.C., Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc., and A1 Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Thomas, and will materially shape the legal landscape for disputes arising from pre-amendment home-improvement contracts.