City of Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cnty. Exec.
| Decision Date | 23 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013–0984.,2013–0984. |
| Citation | 2014 Ohio 4650,142 Ohio St.3d 125,28 N.E.3d 1182 |
| Parties | The CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, Appellee, v. OFFICE OF THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY EXECUTIVE, Appellant, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., and Gregory J. O'Brien, Independence Law Director, and Thomas J. Lee and Jennifer Orr, Cleveland, for appellee.
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian R. Gutkoski and David G. Lambert, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.
Thomas L. Sherman, urging reversal for amicus curiae, County Engineers Association of Ohio.
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we consider the extent of a county's responsibility for repairing and maintaining bridges under R.C. 5591.02 and 5591.21. Appellant, the Office of the Cuyahoga County Executive ("county"), and appellee, the city of Independence, each claim that the other is responsible for maintaining and repairing a bridge located in Cuyahoga County, on the border between Independence and the village of Valley View but on a road that is neither a county road nor a state highway. Because the court of appeals appropriately concluded that the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence supports the common pleas court's judgment, which held the county responsible for the bridge's maintenance and repair, we affirm.
{¶ 2} R.C. 723.01 generally places "the care, supervision, and control of the public highways, streets, avenues, [and] bridges * * * within [a] municipal corporation" within that municipal corporation's legislative authority. The term "municipal corporation" encompasses both cities and villages. R.C. 703.01(A).
{¶ 3} Despite that general rule, R.C. Chapter 5591 specifically addresses county bridges, and R.C. 5591.02 and 5591.21 place a duty on county commissioners to repair bridges located on improved roads of general and public utility running into or through a municipal corporation within the county. 1990 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 90–079, at paragraph three of the syllabus. R.C. 5591.02 provides as follows: "The board of county commissioners shall construct and keep in repair all necessary bridges in municipal corporations on all county roads and improved roads that are of general and public utility, running into or through the municipal corporations, and that are not on state highways." With certain inapplicable exceptions, R.C. 5591.21 similarly requires "the board of county commissioners [to] construct and keep in repair necessary bridges over streams and public canals on or connecting state, county, and improved roads." As to the reference to "improved roads," courts read R.C. 5591.21 in conjunction with R.C. 5591.02 to impose responsibility upon a county with respect to only those improved roads that are of general and public utility.
Washington Court House v. Dumford, 22 Ohio App.2d 75, 78, 258 N.E.2d 261 (2d Dist.1969).
{¶ 4} In September 2010, Independence requested that the Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners ("board"), the predecessor to the county executive, recognize the Old Rockside Road bridge as a bridge of general and public utility. Independence represented that the Old Rockside Road bridge required significant repairs and asserted that the county was responsible for repairing it as a necessary bridge on an improved road of general and public utility.
{¶ 5} The Old Rockside Road bridge spans the Cuyahoga River and traverses the boundary between Independence and Valley View. After crossing the Cuyahoga River, Old Rockside Road connects with two dead-end roads and comes to a dead end itself in Independence. The Old Rockside Road bridge provides the sole means of access to the businesses and facilities, including a station for the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, located off Old Rockside Road in Independence.
{¶ 6} In 1967, Cuyahoga County vacated Old Rockside Road as a county road, pursuant to R.C. 5553.04, after completing construction of a new Rockside Road. Documents created by the county engineer's office in connection with the vacation indicate that Old Rockside Road would remain as a municipal street. Independence admits that it has borne responsibility for the road's maintenance since the county vacated the road.
{¶ 7} At its regular meeting on December 2, 2010, the board determined that Old Rockside Road is not a road of general and public utility.
{¶ 8} Independence appealed the board's decision to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to R.C. 2506.01. Upon review of the parties' briefs, the record, and newly submitted evidence, the common pleas court reversed the board's decision. In a four-sentence journal entry, the court found the board's decision unreasonable and arbitrary, and stated as follows:
The Old Rockside Road bridge is found to be a bridge of "general and public utility" as it lies between two municipalities and is therefore not within the municipal corporation as required by O.R.C. 723.01 and O.R.C. 5591. The court finds that Cuyahoga County is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Old Rockside Road bridge.
{¶ 9} The county appealed, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the common pleas court's decision. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97167, 2013-Ohio-1336, 2013 WL 1384880, ¶ 30.
{¶ 10} This court accepted the county's discretionary appeal on the following proposition of law:
A county has no duty to repair or replace a bridge on [a] dead-end private drive serving a limited number of businesses. The county's duty to repair or replace such a bridge depends upon whether the road served by the bridge is a road of general and public utility, and such a road primarily serves a small number of special and private interests.
136 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2013-Ohio-4657, 995 N.E.2d 1212. Despite the phrasing of its proposition of law, the county does not argue that Old Rockside Road is a "private drive," but maintains that since its vacation as a county road, Old Rockside Road has been a municipal street, a local road, or both.
{¶ 11} The county's proposition of law correctly states that its responsibility for repairing the Old Rockside Road bridge depends on whether Old Rockside Road is an improved road of general and public utility, see R.C. 5591.02 and 5591.21, and this appeal stems from the board's resolution that the road "is not a road of general and public utility." But both the common pleas court and the court of appeals erroneously refer to the relevant inquiry as whether the Old Rockside Road bridge is a bridge of general and public utility.
{¶ 12} Despite the lower courts' misstatement of the issue, the evidence before those courts goes to the nature of the road as much as it goes to the nature of the bridge. For example, the record contains evidence regarding the county's vacation of the road, a 2010 study of traffic using the road and the bridge, the nature of the businesses and facilities located off the road in Independence, the inability of those businesses to access their facilities without traveling over Old Rockside Road and the Old Rockside Road bridge, and the large number of visitors to the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad who rely on Old Rockside Road and the Old Rockside Road bridge to access the station in Independence. On the facts of this particular case, utility of the bridge and utility of the road cannot be separated, and we read the lower courts' findings that the Old Rockside Road bridge is a bridge of general and public utility as a determination that Old Rockside Road is a road of general and public utility.
{¶ 13} In an R.C. 2506.01 administrative appeal, the common pleas court considers the whole record and determines whether the administrative order is "unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence." R.C. 2506.04. See also Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142, 147, 735 N.E.2d 433 (2000). The court weighs the evidence to determine whether a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supports the administrative decision, and if it does, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202, 207, 389 N.E.2d 1113 (1979). If it does not, the court may reverse, vacate, or modify the administrative decision. Id. ; R.C. 2506.04.
{¶ 14} The court of appeals' standard of review under R.C. Chapter 2506 is more limited. Henley at 147, 735 N.E.2d 433, citing Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30, 34, 465 N.E.2d 848 (1984). The court of appeals reviews the common pleas court's judgment only on questions of law and does not have the same extensive authority to weigh the evidence. Id. at 147, 735 N.E.2d 433, quoting Kisil at 34, 465 N.E.2d 848, fn. 4. Within the ambit of questions of law for appellate-court review is whether the common pleas court abused its discretion. Kisil at 34, 465 N.E.2d 848, fn. 4. The court of appeals must affirm unless it finds, as a matter of law, that the trial court's decision is not supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. Id. at 34, 465 N.E.2d 848.
{¶ 15} Here, the common pleas court concluded that the board's decision—that Old Rockside Road is not a road of general and public utility—was unreasonable and arbitrary. Implicit within that conclusion is a finding that the preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence does not support the board's decision. The court of appeals cited the appropriate standard of review and affirmed, concluding that a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supports the trial court's judgment.
{¶ 16} Neither the county's vacation of Old Rockside Road nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.M.P.
...believe appellant forfeited the right to raise the arguments he now raises for the first time on appeal. Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125, 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d 1182, ¶30 (stating that "an appellant generally may not raise an argument on appeal t......
-
In re J.R.F.
...believe appellant forfeited the right to raise the arguments he now raises for the first time on appeal. Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125, 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d 1182, ¶30 (stating that "an appellant generally may not raise an argument on appeal t......
-
In re Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec. Plan of Ohio Edison Co.
...Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc. , 67 Ohio St.3d 274, 279, 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993) ; Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive , 142 Ohio St.3d 125, 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d 1182, ¶ 30. Quite simply, the failure to present an argument to the commission constitutes a w......
-
Browne v. Artex Oil Co.
...the limitations period. We therefore decline to address that question for the first time on appeal. See Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive , 142 Ohio St.3d 125, 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d 1182, ¶ 30 ("an appellant generally may not raise an argument on appeal that the appe......