Plaintiff contractor sues homeowner over unpaid restoration work leading to mechanic’s lien

A recent court decision has reaffirmed the legal validity of a mechanic’s lien and foreclosure judgment, despite previous challenges to its procedural integrity. On February 2, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Ohio’s Eleventh Appellate District in Portage County upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of Timothy Grinder against Marcella A. Schaaf, confirming the enforcement of a mechanic’s lien on Schaaf’s property. This decision comes after an initial reversal on the lien’s validity was vacated upon reconsideration.

The case began when Timothy Grinder filed a complaint on May 26, 2022, seeking foreclosure on a judgment lien for $99,764.70 against Marcella A. Schaaf’s property at 3431 Blitz Road, Kent. The lien arose from unpaid repair work following a kitchen fire that damaged the property in March 2020. Despite Schaaf’s arguments questioning the notarial process involved in securing the lien—specifically that the affidavit lacked proper jurat certification—the trial court found that Grinder had been duly sworn and notarized appropriately.

The legal journey saw several key moments: On November 28, 2022, partial summary judgment favored Grinder regarding the lien’s validity; by June 4, 2024, a magistrate ruled in Grinder’s favor for both monetary damages and foreclosure rights; and finally, despite Schaaf’s objections citing deceptive sales practices under Ohio’s Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), her appeals were overruled as she failed to cancel or rescind the contract per statutory requirements.

Schaaf contended that Grinder violated HSSA by not providing a written contract with rescission rights—a point underscored by findings that she paid $10,000 upfront while other insurance proceeds were misallocated for personal expenses rather than contractor payments. However, since no formal cancellation notice was issued by Schaaf as required under HSSA guidelines, her claim for relief was denied.

Ultimately, the appellate court sided with precedent set by State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose (2022), affirming that despite procedural irregularities in notarization acknowledgments versus jurats within affidavits—Grinder’s affidavit remained valid under law. The decision also addressed multiple assignments of error raised by Schaaf but found them without merit due to lack of evidence or procedural missteps during litigation phases.

Legal representation for Timothy Grinder was provided by Ari H. Jaffe, Anna E. Bullock, and Jeffrey R. Vaisa from Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP based in Cleveland; Christopher J. Mallin represented Marcella A. Schaaf from Mogadore. The case was presided over by Judge Scott Lynch alongside Presiding Judge Matt Lynch and Judge John J. Eklund under Case No. 2024-P-0081.