A disagreement over responsibility for sewer line repairs between two neighboring property owners has resulted in a legal dispute involving claims of breach of oral agreement and unjust enrichment. The conflict centers on the installation and repair of a shared sewer line that was damaged during home construction, with both parties seeking compensation for expenses incurred and alleging failures to fulfill agreed-upon obligations.
On August 2, 2021, Patrick A. Castro, Jr. filed a complaint in Franklin County Municipal Court against Hero Havens, LLC. According to the filing, Castro owns a residence on Arbutus Avenue in Grove City, Ohio, while Hero Havens owns nearby property on Columbus Street. The dispute began after an excavation crew cut a sewer line serving both properties during construction work on Castro’s land in January 2020. While a temporary fix was implemented for Hero Havens’ property, Castro alleged that “a permanent solution was required as [appellee’s] sewer line had no legal right to cross [appellant’s] [p]roperty in its then existing location.”
Castro coordinated with other affected neighbors and paid for the installation of a new sewer line across four parcels. He claimed that he reached a verbal agreement with Hero Havens in September 2020: Castro would pay upfront for the work and Hero Havens would reimburse him $12,000 for its share. While two other neighbors reimbursed Castro as agreed, he alleged that Hero Havens did not pay its portion. Asserting causes of action for breach of verbal contract and unjust enrichment, Castro sought judgment against Hero Havens totaling $13,794.55.
Hero Havens responded with counterclaims alleging that Castro and his agents damaged their sewer drainage line and failed to provide the promised permanent solution. They stated they had to hire Edwards Excavating at their own expense to temporarily restore service and install what they considered a permanent line according to code requirements. However, they alleged that Castro hired another contractor who connected improperly into the temporary rather than permanent line—a move which they claim did not meet the original agreement’s intent or technical needs.
The case grew more complex when Hero Havens moved to amend its counterclaim after receiving new estimates from plumbing companies showing potential repair costs far exceeding earlier figures—upwards of $74,029 and $84,508 compared to an initial estimate of $24,301. The municipal court granted leave for this amendment on November 23, 2022; shortly thereafter it transferred the case to Franklin County Court of Common Pleas because the amended counterclaim exceeded its monetary jurisdiction.
Castro objected to these procedural decisions—arguing that allowing amendment so late was prejudicial and untimely—and appealed several orders: (1) granting leave to amend; (2) transferring venue; (3) giving additional time under Civil Rule 56(F) for discovery; and (4) denying his motion for summary judgment.
The appellate decision outlines how courts are guided by liberal policies favoring amendments so cases can be decided on their merits rather than technicalities or deadlines alone. The opinion notes: “leave should be granted absent a finding of bad faith, undue delay or undue prejudice.” In this instance, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the municipal court since new information about damages justified amending the counterclaim even after significant time had passed.
On discovery issues under Civil Rule 56(F), Hero Havens argued it needed more time because new claims were added after initial motions were filed—meaning relevant evidence had yet to be gathered through depositions or document requests regarding what work was done by which contractors and whether it met agreed specifications. The trial court granted additional time for discovery until July 7, 2023—a decision upheld by the appellate panel as within judicial discretion.
Regarding summary judgment denial—which would have resolved some or all claims without trial—the courts found there were genuine disputes about key facts: whether there truly was an enforceable oral agreement covering all terms; whether either party performed or breached those terms; what exactly constituted ‘permanent’ versus ‘temporary’ solutions; and who ultimately benefited from expenditures made on shared infrastructure.
Evidence included competing affidavits from both sides detailing different understandings about what was promised and delivered—particularly concerning which sewer lines were meant as temporary fixes versus long-term solutions compliant with city codes. As summarized by the trial court: “certain terms of the oral agreement are clearly missing” from written communications memorializing discussions between parties.
Ultimately following a jury-waived trial before a magistrate in August 2024—and after considering testimony and documentary evidence—the common pleas court entered final judgment on April 22, 2025 in favor of Hero Havens on its counterclaim for breach of oral agreement against Castro. Damages awarded totaled $19,853.45 after accounting for amounts owed under other components of their arrangement.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed this outcome on April 14, 2026—rejecting all three assignments of error raised by Castro regarding amendment timing, transfer jurisdiction issues, allowance for further discovery under Civil Rule 56(F), and denial of summary judgment due to unresolved factual disputes requiring trial resolution.
Attorneys representing Patrick A. Castro Jr., appellant/plaintiff: Christopher R. Pettit (Dickie McCamey & Chilcote P.C.). Attorneys representing appellee/defendant Hero Havens LLC: Janica Pierce Tucker (Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP). Case ID: No. 25AP-397.
Source: 2026Ohio1354_Castro_Jr_v_Hero_Havens_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
