Login | February 24, 2025
Panel upholds ruling in dispute over construction of home
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 24, 2025
A Fifth District Court of Appeals panel affirmed a trial court ruling that a Troy Township couple insufficiently argued that the officers of a home construction limited liability company were personally liable for damages resulting from the company’s insolvency.
The 3-0 panel affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court ruling that absolved sisters AnnaLeisa Richards and EmmaLee Ponzio, the managing members and owners of Maple Craft LCC, of any personal financial responsibility relating to the company’s insolvency and subsequent dissolution while outstanding subcontractor invoices for the construction of Sarah and Brian Wood’s home exceeded $58,000.
Fifth District Presiding Judge William Hoffman wrote that the allegations raised by the Woods to force the court to pierce the corporate veil were insufficient.
“Appellants failed to allege Richards and Ponzio controlled Maple Craft so completely (that) Maple Craft did not have a separate mind, will or existence of its own; Richards and Ponzio’s control was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud, an illegal act or a similarly unlawful act; and appellants suffered injury or unjust loss as a result of Richards and Ponzio’s control and wrong,” he wrote.
The Woods signed a contract Nov. 29, 2021, for Maple Craft to build their home on a 2.4-acre lot in Delaware County for the purchase price of $434,255, case summary provided.
Construction on the home began Jan. 17, 2022, and was scheduled to be completed within 210 days, or Aug. 15, 2022.
On April 26, 2022, Gary Dunn, Maple Craft’s sole employee and father of Richards and Ponzio, requested the Woods pay in advance of work completed.
The couple paid Maple Craft $103,803, based upon Dunn’s representations, summary detailed.
The panel noted that although Maple Craft had incurred $61,301 in expenses relating to the construction of appellants’ home, Maple Craft paid only $2,884 from the Woods’ deposit to subcontractors or on invoices for materials.
Dunn advised the couple via an email dated May 31, 2022, of the company’s intention to cease all work on the construction of the home as a result of the company’s insolvency.
Dunn told the Woods that after all funds from the lender and the couple are collected and paid to subcontractors and vendors, Maple Craft would still owe nearly $1.2 million “with no money to pay.”
The company filed for dissolution July 15, 2022, and was placed in receivership, summary detailed.
After the receiver filed his final accounting and all of Maple Craft’s assets had been distributed, unpaid subcontractor invoices for work done on the Woods’ home totaled $58,417.
A subcontractor filed a mechanic’s lien against the Woods’ property Aug. 5, 2022.
The couple subsequently engaged a new contractor to complete the construction at a higher price than they had originally contracted with Maple Craft.
While the dissolution matter was pending, the Woods filed a complaint against Dunn and later amended it to include Richards and Ponzio.
The amended complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment and fraud, and sought to hold the defendants personally liable through the piercing of the corporate veil of Maple Craft.
Richards and Ponzio filed an answer and cross-claim against Dunn on July 19, 2023. The cross-claim against Dunn raised claims of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the couple on the allegations against Dunn and in favor of Richards and Ponzio in a cross-claim against Dunn, despite the Woods’ objections.
“In their second assignment of error, appellants contend the trial court erred in granting appellees’ agreed judgment entry over appellants’ objections,” Hoffman wrote. “Appellants were not parties to the agreed judgment entry between Richards and Ponzio and Dunn. … The trial court was not required to entertain appellants’ objections and we find the trial court did not abuse discretion in granting the agreed judgment entry over appellants’ objections.”
Fifth District judges Craig Baldwin and Andrew King joined Hoffman’s decision.
Copyright © 2025 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved