Plaintiff contractor accuses homeowner Shaun G. Reeves of breaching payment agreement

Buckeye North Coatings, LLC faces a significant legal setback as the Ohio Court of Appeals affirms a judgment against it in a breach of contract case. On December 8, 2025, Buckeye North Coatings was found to have materially breached its contract with Shaun G. Reeves, leading to the court’s decision in favor of Reeves. The case was filed in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas under Case No. 2023 M 000624.

The dispute arose when Buckeye North Coatings applied an exterior coating to Reeves’s geodesic home using their product, Rhino Shield. Reeves alleged that the application process was flawed and resulted in significant water intrusion into his home. According to Reeves, the company’s failure to properly prepare the surface before applying the coating led to these issues. He claimed that necessary steps such as power washing and proper caulking were not performed adequately. The trial court agreed with Reeves, finding that Buckeye North Coatings did not comply with essential preparation requirements outlined in their contract.

Reeves’s claims included breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The court limited his recovery to the amount he had already paid on the contract—$1,783—while ordering Buckeye North Coatings to remove a mechanic’s lien they had placed on his property. Despite attempts by Buckeye North Coatings to challenge this decision through various assignments of error—including allegations of improper admission of parol evidence and hearsay—the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Throughout the proceedings, testimonies from various individuals played a crucial role. Scott McLeod, who assisted in constructing Reeves’s home, testified about observing irregularities during the coating application process. His testimony highlighted that caulk was applied on wet surfaces and remained improperly set even after application of Rhino Shield. These factors contributed significantly to the trial court’s conclusion that Buckeye North Coatings had failed in its contractual obligations.

Buckeye North Coatings sought relief from this judgment by raising multiple points on appeal but failed to convince the appellate judges—Robert J. Patton (Presiding Judge), Matt Lynch, and Eugene A. Lucci—that any errors occurred at trial which would warrant overturning or modifying the lower court’s decision.

Representing Buckeye North Coatings was attorney Dave Lackey from Sybert, Rhoad, Lackey & Swisher L.L.C., while Mark E. Porter represented Shaun G. Reeves.