On May 28, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the Ninth District Court of Appeals erred when it sent a case back to the trial court for failure to hold a hearing on a motion to compel arbitration.
Background and Appellate Conflict
In Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1875, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that neither party:
- Requested a hearing in the trial court or
- Raised the failure to hold a hearing on the appeal to the Ninth District.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals, nonetheless, interpreted R.C. 2711.03(A) as requiring a hearing (“The court shall hear the parties …”). It reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of holding a hearing, noting that its decision was in conflict with two other Courts of Appeals. The builder appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, resolved the conflict among Ohio’s district courts, and remanded the case to the Ninth District with instructions to consider the merits of the original appeal—whether the arbitration clause was void due to fraudulent inducement.
In so holding, the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of “party presentation,” which provides that cases should ordinarily be decided based on issues raised by the parties. The Court held that the role of courts is as the neutral decider of the matters presented by the parties. Here, since no party objected to the lack of a hearing at the trial court, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the Ninth District had exceeded its authority.
Thus, despite language in the statute that would appear to require a hearing, the Ohio Supreme Court held it was an error for the Court of Appeals to reverse and remand the case to the trial court for failure to hold a hearing that no party requested. The Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth District Court of Appeals to determine whether the arbitration clause was void due to fraudulent inducement—the actual issue raised by the homeowners.
Conclusion
While certain matters are not waivable and can be raised at any time or on the court’s own initiative (lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for example), many other matters are waivable, particularly for failing to raise them at the trial court or on appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court has reaffirmed that:
- Lower courts should limit their decisions to the matters raised by the parties.
- Parties in litigation should carefully present and preserve any issues they want to be decided.
- Courts will not raise issues on behalf of any of the parties.