A couple’s dream home turned into a legal nightmare when they alleged construction defects and sought justice through arbitration, only to have their claims denied. On December 30, 2025, Stephen M. Reynolds filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals of Ohio against M/I Homes of Central Ohio, LLC after the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ruled against him and his co-plaintiff, Nicole Hamby.
Reynolds and Hamby entered into a contract with M/I Homes on October 1, 2021, for the construction of their new home. However, they soon discovered what they claimed were significant construction defects that M/I Homes failed to rectify. The couple initiated arbitration proceedings on April 21, 2023, under the American Arbitration Association (AAA), citing issues such as defective tiles and grout in bathrooms, structural cracks throughout the house, and buckling wooden floors. They argued that M/I Homes not only refused to address these issues but also voided their punch list detailing necessary repairs. Reynolds and Hamby accused M/I Homes of breach of contract under several laws including the Ohio Home Construction Service Supplies Act and sought damages exceeding $53,838.80.
Despite presenting evidence from a structural engineer who confirmed multiple defects in their home, the arbitrator ruled against Reynolds and Hamby on April 23, 2024. The arbitrator found no merit in their claims for damages or reimbursement for legal fees incurred during the process. Following this decision, Reynolds filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award in July 2024 with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas but was met with another setback when the court upheld the arbitrator’s decision on April 15, 2025.
The court emphasized its limited scope in reviewing arbitration awards under Ohio law which favors arbitration as a speedy and efficient dispute resolution method. It found no grounds to vacate or modify the award since it determined that there was a rational nexus between the terms of the Purchase Agreement and the arbitrator’s decision. The trial court stated that it could not reassess factual determinations made by an arbitrator unless there was evidence of fraud or misconduct—none of which were present according to its findings.
Reynolds appealed this judgment arguing procedural errors by both the arbitrator and trial court but faced challenges due to procedural missteps in his appeal filings which lacked substantial legal argumentation as required by appellate rules.
Representing himself pro se in this legal battle without Nicole Hamby’s formal participation—since she did not sign any filings—Reynolds now faces an uphill battle at the appellate level where courts traditionally defer heavily to arbitration outcomes barring extraordinary circumstances.
The case is presided over by Judge Boggs with attorneys Barry A. Rudell II representing M/I Homes through Markesbery & Richardson Co., L.P.A., while Reynolds proceeds without legal counsel for himself.
Source: 2025Ohio5818_Reynolds_v_MI_Homes_of_Central_Ohio_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf