Lorain sued by former contractor

The city of Lorain and several of its current and former employees are being sued by an Amherst contractor.

The suit was filed Aug. 1 in Lorain County Common Pleas Court on behalf of Mark Pavlich, owner of Quality Builders LLC.

It names the city, prosecutor Jeffrey S. Szabo, Lorain police Sgt. Michael Hendershot and former building inspector William Devsari as defendants.

The suit makes two claims for relief: tort of abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Pavlich is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages to be determined at trial.

According to the filing, Quality Builders was hired to construct a deck and patio at a woman’s Oak Point Estates home in July 2003.

After the work was completed in September of that year, the woman still owed a balance of $2,517.03, the suit says.

In October 2003, the company filed a mechanics lien, or a lien to secure payment for labor or materials in connection to a home construction contract, against the woman for the remaining balance.

Days later, the woman filed a civil suit against the company

seeking damages in relation to the quality of Quality Builders’ work, the suit says.

In March 2004, the company released the lien under the belief the woman would terminate her civil suit.

A month later, Pavlich was told by Desvari, then chief building inspector for the city, that his license had been revoked “for the falsification of a building permit and failure to have inspections conducted” on concrete work for another client, the filing says.

In July 2004, the woman who initially sued Quality Builders the previous year, filed a complaint with the city’s building department over “questionable work” performed by Pavlich and mentioned the mechanics lien as well as a case in small claims court, according to the filing.

Szabo filed failure to comply with contractor registration and requirements, failure to comply with permit application requirement and falsification charges against Pavlich in January 2005.

Pavlich later pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charges.

Szabo later said this was “one of the only (such) cases I’ve seen that went forward,” the suit says.

On July 25, 2005, an attorney filed an appearance for Pavlich and asked for a continuance in the trial which was scheduled for the next day.

The request was denied and Pavlich was found guilty in a bench trial in which he had no legal counsel, the complaint says.

Pavlich was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 90 days suspended, on the

condition that he completes two years of probation and pay a $1,000 fine and restitution.

The execution of the sentence was stayed pending an appeal in the Ninth District Court of Appeals that was denied on Nov. 27, 2006.

On Jan. 5, 2007, Pavlich was ordered to begin serving his sentence, but the order was held in abeyance Jan. 22 pending a status conference between the court and his new attorney.

That status conference was continued multiple times, the complaint says.

In February of that year, Pavlich paid $1,000 to the original woman on Oak Point Estates to settle the claim against him.

The case was closed the following month with prejudice, which means the matter cannot be re-litigated, the suit says.

Throughout the criminal and civil proceedings, Szabo was in contact with Hendershot about the requested restitution for the Oak Points Estates case, according to the suit.

Hendershot was not assigned to the case, but allegedly was romantically linked with the woman who brought the action against Pavlich, the suit says.

The filing claims Hendershot “demanded” $3,500 in restitution on top of the $1,000 settlement the woman already had received, it says.

In March 2007, Szabo informed Pavlich’s attorney he would recommend suspending Pavlich’s jail time if he paid the sum to the woman, according to the suit.

In September 2007, the attorney mailed a check for $3,000 to the woman, the suit says.

Also that year, the court found that restitution was paid in full and suspended Pavlich’s jail time, the filing

claims.

After the cases were settled, Pavlich approached the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office and requested an investigation into the matter.

He was asked to speak to the FBI, which already was investigating Devsari, who later was criminally charged but not connected to this affair, the suit claims.

During this time, Pavlich was attempting to procure records from the city, but was unsuccessful, the suit says.

Szabo also asked the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office not to supply Pavlich with records, according to the suit.

In 2009, the Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into the matter and found Pavlich “had been a victim of abuse of process” in relation to Szabo and Hendershot’s actions during the matter, the suit says.

The Prosecutor’s Office suspended action on the case pending the decision of the Ohio Ethics Commission, which found in November 2013 that it had no jurisdiction over the case, the suit says.

The Prosecutor’s Office then forwarded the information to the Ohio Supreme Court Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which forwarded in May 2014 to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline closed the investigation in August 2015, the filing claims.

Lorain Law Director Patrick Riley said he has not reviewed the suit.

“I really can’t comment at this point in time, because I’ve not seen the lawsuit,” Riley said.

“I can’t comment until I have the lawsuit in front of me and have the opportunity to investigate myself.”