In a recent legal battle over custom furniture, a dissatisfied customer took her case to the Court of Appeals in Ohio, only to have her initial victory overturned. Thomasine Provolish filed a complaint against DeCiocco Showroom, Inc., claiming that the custom chairs she ordered did not meet the specifications outlined in their contract. The appeal was heard in Hamilton County on November 21, 2025, where the court ultimately ruled in favor of DeCiocco Showroom.
The case began when Provolish ordered several pieces of custom furniture from DeCiocco in February 2023, including two chairs that were supposed to match specific dimensions. According to Provolish, the chairs delivered were much deeper than agreed upon. Despite winning an initial ruling with a magistrate awarding her $5,999, the trial court found otherwise. The court determined that the chairs conformed to trade standards and contract terms as understood within the industry. This decision was upheld by the appellate court after reviewing evidence such as emails from industry professionals and photographs showing measurements consistent with trade practices.
Provolish’s dissatisfaction stemmed from receiving chairs with a seat depth she measured at 29 inches from front edge to seatback, whereas she expected a depth closer to 19 inches as per her understanding of the contract. However, Stewart Furniture—the manufacturer—clarified that they measure “seat depth” differently: from the front edge of the seat cushion to the face of any back pillow or cushion. By this method, they argued that their measurement of 20 inches was within acceptable variance.
Despite being offered a resolution by DeCiocco for remaking and selling new pieces at cost price—which Provolish declined—she pursued legal action seeking redress for what she perceived as breach of contract. In response, DeCiocco contended that any deviation was minor and within trade norms and further noted potential contractual issues due to Provolish’s since-dissolved LLC being listed as a party rather than herself personally.
The plaintiff sought relief based on claims of breach-of-contract due to alleged non-conformity with specified dimensions and sought monetary compensation initially awarded by a magistrate but later overturned by higher courts. The appellate court affirmed that no breach occurred under established trade usage definitions which allowed for slight variations in measurements provided they aligned with industry practices.
Representing herself pro se throughout proceedings while Glennon Law Firm LLC defended DeCiocco Showroom with Austin R. Howard as counsel, Provolish faced challenges both procedurally—such as contesting late-filed briefs—and substantively regarding interpretation disputes over contractual language versus industry norms.
Judges involved included Presiding Judge Crouse along with Judges Bock and Moore who concurred on affirming lower court decisions against Provolish’s claims under Case ID C-250047.
Source: C250047_Provolish_v_Deciocco_Showroom_Inc_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
