Handyman Services Provider Sues Client Over Unpaid HVAC Repair Costs

In a legal battle that underscores the complexities of contract disputes, Mikes Handyman/HVAC Service, LLC found itself at odds with a client over unpaid services. On November 26, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Ohio released its decision in favor of Mikes Handyman, modifying and remanding a previous judgment from the Lyndhurst Municipal Court against Jeffrey DiFiore. The appeal was filed by Mikes Handyman on November 21, 2022, after DiFiore disputed the charges for HVAC services rendered.

The case traces back to May 31, 2022, when Jeffrey DiFiore reached out to Michael Saracene, owner of Mikes Handyman, to repair an air conditioning unit at his tenant’s condominium. Saracene quoted $135 for the service call and $425 for parts and labor—a total of $560—which DiFiore initially accepted. However, after the repairs were completed on June 1, DiFiore contested the cost of a part that he claimed could be purchased online for $20. This led to negotiations where Saracene agreed to drop the service call fee and issued an invoice for $425. Despite this concession, DiFiore offered only $325 as payment.

Mikes Handyman subsequently filed a complaint against DiFiore citing action on account, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and fraud among other claims. They sought compensatory damages amounting to $425 plus interest and punitive damages totaling $5,000. In response, DiFiore filed multiple motions challenging jurisdiction and even counterclaimed violations under various Ohio laws including consumer sales practices.

The municipal court ruled partially in favor of Mikes Handyman but awarded only $425 instead of the full $560 originally agreed upon. Dissatisfied with this outcome and dismissal of their fraud claim without consideration for attorney fees or sanctions against DiFiore’s actions deemed frivolous by them, Mikes Handyman appealed.

Upon review by Judge Kathleen Ann Keough alongside Judges Michelle J. Sheehan and Deena R. Calabrese at the appellate level—Case No. CVF-2302348—the court modified the judgment to award Mikes Handyman the full amount due: $560 plus interest and costs while dismissing claims related to fraud due lack of separate duty or additional damages beyond contractual breach.

This case highlights not only contractual obligations but also procedural intricacies within civil litigation such as summary judgments and proper pleadings necessary when seeking relief beyond compensatory damages in Ohio courts.

Attorneys involved included L. Bryan Carr representing Mikes Handyman while Kenneth D. Myers defended Jeffrey DiFiore in this appellate proceeding identified under Case No. 114875 before being remanded back for execution according to revised judgment terms outlined by appellate judges.