Beechler v. Winkel

• Decision Date: 03 March 1978
• Parties: , 13 O.O.3d 131 BEECHLER et al., Appellees, v. WINKEL et al., Appellants. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 65

59 Ohio App.2d 65

392 N.E.2d 889, 13 O.O.3d 131

BEECHLER et al., Appellees, v. WINKEL et al., Appellants. ^*

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Erie County.

March 3, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When a landowner records a plat subdividing his land, which plat shows roads built to county specifications, and thereafter sells lots in the subdivision in reference to the recorded plat, the landowner is bound by the representations in the plat and has a duty to construct the roads as represented therein, and the purchasers have a right to have roads so constructed, regardless of whether the roads are subsequently dedicated to the public.

2. The right to have the roads in such a subdivision constructed according to county specifications extends to all original purchasers of lots and all grantees of the original purchasers equally.

3. Any one of the original purchasers of a lot in such a subdivision, or any grantee from such a purchaser, may rely on the recorded plat and enforce the right of all purchasers and grantees to have roads constructed in the subdivision according to county specifications.

Catri, Howells, Kellam & Owens Co., L.P.A., and Walter R. Wagner, Sandusky, for appellees.

Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., Sandusky, for appellants.

William E. Didelius, Sandusky, for defendants Kenneth Polta, the county engineer, and the Bd. of Com'rs of Erie County. CONNORS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment order filed on August 15, 1977, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees. A notice of appeal was filed with the Clerk of Courts on July 6, 1977, and the briefs herein were timely filed. The matter was argued before this court on November 7, 1977.

The original complaint was filed on March 20, 1975. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, with an alternative prayer for relief, which complaint consisted of two counts. Count I alleged that plaintiffs were owners of property abutting roads located in the subdivision once owned by defendants who caused a plat of the subdivision to be filed and dedicated certain properties to public use. The count alleged that plaintiffs purchased their lots relying on the promise contained in the plat and oral representation made by the defendants. Count I further alleged that plaintiffs made demands on the Winkels to comply with the promises, which the Winkels refused to do. Claiming no adequate remedy at law, plaintiffs invoked the trial court's equity jurisdiction to determine: (1) whether the promises of the Winkels were binding; (2) according to what specifications the Winkels would be required to improve the roads; and (3) according to what specifications the County Engineer, Kenneth Polta, and the Board of County Commissioners would be required to accept the roads. In Count II, plaintiffs prayed that if the court found the Winkels obligated to improve the roads, the court alternatively award money judgment against the Winkels for the cost of putting in the necessary improvements.

The Winkels answered on August 6, 1975, asserting the following defenses: (1) laches; (2) lack of privity of certain plaintiffs; (3) failure of the complaint to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted; (4) the statute of limitations; (5) merger of any promises made by defendants into the deeds; and (6) lack of consideration.

The answer of the defendants Polta and the Board of County Commissioners prayed that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed.

On April 6, 1976, the trial court entered a judgment granting the Winkels' motion for a judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the case on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs appealed.

On July 2, 1976, this Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, finding that the plaintiffs' complaint stated a cause of action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

On April 25-26, 1977, the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, without a jury, heard evidence on Count I of plaintiffs' complaint. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court ruled that plaintiffs established by clear and convincing evidence that they were entitled to relief. The judgment entry of the trial court, filed June 8, 1977, after disposing of various pending motions, contains the following judgment orders:

"As to question No. 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint for a declaratory judgment, the court finds that said promise of the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, to improve the roads in the subdivision in accordance with specifications of the County Commissioner, is binding upon said defendants and that they owe the duty to improve said roads.

"As to question No. 2 of the plaintiffs' complaint for a declaratory judgment, the court having found in the affirmative as to question No. 1, then finds that the duty of the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, to improve the streets should be done in accordance with specifications in existence in 1975, those specifications being the same as the date of the judgment order.

"As to question No. 3 of the plaintiffs' complaint for a declaratory judgment, the court having found that the defendants owe a duty to conform to 1975 specifications, therefore, the Engineer is bound to accept only the 1975 specifications."

The court then considered the question of preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for the construction of the roads and in regard to this question, the court further ordered the Erie County Engineer to prepare plans and detailed specifications for construction of the roads in the subdivision as set forth in the complaint, in accordance with the County Engineer's current standards for such roads. The County Engineer was ordered to complete the plans and specifications within nine months of the filing of the judgment order, the same to be completed sooner if possible considering the County Engineer's work schedule. Upon completion of said plans and specifications the County Engineer was ordered to notify the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, in writing, that said plans and specifications had been completed. If said defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, had not previously notified the County Engineer that they were proceeding to construct the roads in accordance with the current plans and specifications and under the inspection of the Erie County Engineer's Office, and if notice of the defendants' desire to proceed immediately to complete said roads was not received by the County Engineer's notice as set forth therein, then, in that event, the County Engineer was ordered to proceed to advertise the road project for competitive bids and to accept the lowest and best bid in accordance with the County Engineer's normal procedure in such matters. Upon acceptance of the lowest and best bid, the County Engineer was ordered to notify the defendants of the amount of the bid and the County Engineer was likewise ordered to notify the defendants of the amount of money, including the amount of the bid, any cost of preparation of plans and specifications, and inspection fees, that was necessary to accomplish the construction of the roads. It was the further order of the court that the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, deposit with the office of the Erie County Commissioners the amount of money as specified by the Engineer in his notice that was necessary to complete the construction of the roads, including inspection fees and costs of preparation of plans and specifications, and the deposit of money was to be made within fifteen days from the date defendants were notified of the amount. In the event that the sum of money was not deposited with the office of the County Commissioners within the time set forth, a money judgment equal to the total amount of the Engineer's notice was to be rendered against the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, and in favor of the plaintiffs in this case. Any one of the plaintiffs named in the action was permitted to proceed to enforce and collect the judgment on behalf of all other property owners in the subdivision. Any judgment received in this matter was ordered paid by the Clerk of Courts to the Board of County Commissioners for payment of the cost of preparation of plans, construction and inspection as set forth in the order. Any judge in the Common Pleas Court of Erie County was to be permitted to hear evidence to enforce or supplement the order, including awarding a money judgment against the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel, and to further enforce the terms of the order for the collection of the amount as determined by the Engineer. The costs of the action were assessed against the defendants, Ralph James Winkel and Frances Ann Winkel.

From this judgment order, the defendants set forth four assignments of error, with five subsections.

The first assignment of error is as follows:

"The judgment of the trial court, in this equity proceeding, was contrary to law and against the manifest weight of the evidence."

There is no question but that in 1960, the defendants purchased seventy to seventy-five acres of farmland, 11.78 acres of which they subdivided into a nineteen lot subdivision. At the time the plat was submitted to the recorder's office for recording, the county required the plat to contain a certificate that roads would be constructed in accordance with county specifications. The Winkels signed this certificate. At trial, Mr. Winkel, through counsel, argued that he believed the certificate obligated him to build the roads to county specifications only if he wanted the roads to be public.

After the plat was recorded, the Winkels constructed roads through the subdivision and subsequently sold the nineteen lots. The purchasers who testified stated that the price which they paid...