A recent appellate court decision has overturned sanctions imposed on a construction contractor and his attorney after they were ordered to pay attorney fees for requesting a Spanish-language interpreter during trial proceedings. The case involved claims of breach of contract and slander of title stemming from incomplete home remodeling work, raising questions about access to language accommodations in legal settings.
The complaint was filed by Legacy Real Estate Investing, LLC in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas against Maldonado Construction, LLC. The judgment from the trial court, which had required Douglas Maldonado and his attorney Thomas Kollin to pay $600 in attorney fees to Legacy Real Estate Investing for what was deemed a frivolous request for an interpreter, was reversed by the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals on March 20, 2026.
According to the court documents, Legacy Real Estate Investing hired Maldonado Construction to perform remodeling and construction work on one of its residential properties. When Maldonado allegedly failed to complete the work as agreed, Legacy sued for breach of contract and also claimed slander of title after Maldonado placed a mechanic’s lien on the property. In response, Maldonado filed counterclaims. Discovery in the case concluded by January 31, 2025, with a bench trial scheduled for May 14, 2025. During discovery, including his deposition, Maldonado did not use an interpreter.
The issue at trial centered around whether Maldonado required a Spanish-language interpreter due to limited English proficiency. At the final pretrial conference on April 23, 2025, discussions took place regarding this potential need; however, no written motion requesting an interpreter was filed before trial. On the morning of trial, Kollin arrived with an interpreter from Miami Valley Interpreters but learned she was not certified by the Ohio Supreme Court. The court did not permit her to assist.
When proceedings began, Kollin reiterated his request for an interpreter and sought appointment of another individual who was present at the courthouse. Legacy’s counsel objected on two grounds: first, that he had prepared without expecting an interpreter—scheduling experts accordingly—and second, that there was no demonstrated need since Maldonado had lived in the United States for over two decades and participated in prior legal processes without assistance.
The trial court conducted voir dire examinations into Maldonado’s English proficiency on both days of trial. While acknowledging that Spanish was his primary language and that he sometimes struggled with complex concepts or written materials in English, testimony showed that he communicated primarily in English at home and at work and had completed multi-hour depositions without signaling comprehension issues.
Despite these findings, after further arguments about intent and procedure surrounding the late request for an interpreter—and following objections from Legacy’s counsel—the trial court ruled that neither Maldonado nor his attorney acted in good faith when seeking an interpreter so close to trial. The judge concluded their actions were intended as delay tactics resulting in unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. As such, sanctions were imposed under Ohio Revised Code Section 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(i), ordering payment within 24 hours.
Kollin appealed this ruling on behalf of himself and his client. The appellate court reviewed whether requesting an interpreter could be considered frivolous conduct warranting sanctions under state law. It found no evidence supporting claims that Kollin or Maldonado acted solely to delay proceedings or increase costs unnecessarily; instead it noted that discussion about interpreters occurred well before trial day and efforts were made to secure appropriate assistance as recommended by court staff.
The appellate opinion stated: “We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions based on Maldonado’s request for an interpreter.” The judgment imposing sanctions was therefore reversed.
Ultimately, after further scheduled hearings were set but before they resumed in August 2025, both parties reached a settlement agreement resulting in voluntary dismissal with prejudice by September 2025.
Attorneys named in connection with this case include Thomas M. Kollin representing Maldonado Construction (appellant) and Robert J. Huffman representing Legacy Real Estate Investing (appellee). Judges Christopher B. Epley (authoring), Lewis (presiding judge), and Tucker concurred in the appellate decision under case number C.A. No. 2025-CA-34.
