State Of Ohio v. Athens County Comm'rs
| Decision Date | 09 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 10CA15,Case No: 10CA3 |
| Citation | 2011 Ohio 675 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, ex rel. Richard Jeffers, Relator-Appellant/Appellee, v. Athens County Commissioners, et al., Respondents-Appellees/Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
APPEARANCES:
John P. Lavelle and Robert R. Rittenhouse, Lavelle and Associates, Athens, Ohio, for Richard Jeffers, Relator-Appellant\Appellee.
C. David Warren, Athens County Prosecutor, Athens, Ohio, Robert H. Stoffers, Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., Columbus, Ohio, and Douglas C. Boatright, Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, LLP, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Board of Athens County Commissioners, Respondents-Appellees/Appellants.
{¶1} The Board of Athens County Commissioners ("Board") vacated two roads. Richard Jeffers appealed the Board's two decisions to the Athens County Common Pleas Court ("trial court"), which dismissed both appeals. Jeffers now appeals the trial court's dismissal of the appeals to this court. After review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeals.
{¶2} In a separate case, the trial court issued a writ of mandamus, which commanded the Board to institute damages proceedings under Chapter 163 of the Revised Code. The Board now appeals the trial court's issuance of the writ of mandamus. On appeal, the Board first claims that the trial court erred because it did not carry out a mandate from a prior opinion issued out of our court. Specifically, the Board asserts that our prior opinion only afforded Jeffers the right to a damages hearing before the Board, instead of proceedings under Chapter 163 of the Revised Code. Because we find that the lower court correctly applied our previous opinion in this case, we disagree. The Board next contends that an amendment to the Revised Code no longer requires it to institute proceedings under Chapter 163 of the Revised Code. Because we find that the lower court correctly determined that these changes to the Revised Code are prospective only and do not apply to the mandamus action, we disagree. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writ of mandamus.
{¶3} The Board raises four other assignments of error. But all of these assignments go to the issue of damages. Since the Board may prevail on these issues in its proceedings under Chapter 163 of the Revised Code, we find that these issues are not yet ripe for review.
{¶4} Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
{¶5} As the trial court noted, these cases have a tortured history. The dispute between the parties stems from the decisions of the Board to vacate two roads in 2004. We lay out only the most basic facts. A more detailed statement of the facts iscontained in our previous decision in Jeffers v. Bd. of Athens Cty. Commrs., Athens App. No. 06CA39, 2007-Ohio-2458.
{¶6} Essentially, this case concerns three cases before the trial court. Cases 04CI0282 and 04CI0324 are appeals to the trial court from the determination of the Board that the vacations of Red Lane Road and Jeffers Road were for the public convenience and welfare of Athens County. These cases were consolidated before the trial court, and they are designated case number 10CA3 before this court. Case number 06CI0190 is a mandamus action before the trial court. In this action, Jeffers filed a petition requesting a writ of mandamus to order the Board to institute damages proceedings pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Ohio Revised Code.
{¶7} In the mandamus action, Jeffers amended the complaint to add various claims. Jeffers included a series of claims for money damages under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code. Essentially, these claims rely on the same facts as Jeffers's claim for mandamus. That is, Jeffers alleged that the Board was obliged to institute proceedings under Chapter 163 of the Ohio Revised Code, and its failure to do so harmed Jeffers by violating various constitutional rights.
{¶8} At one point in the litigation, Jeffers filed a motion indicating that he intended to proceed solely on the issue of damages. The motion indicated that Jeffers "is willing to forego the O.R.C. § 5563.10 appeal on the public convenience and necessity issue as to whether Alexander Township Roads, # 548 and 544, Red Lane and Jeffers Road should be closed, when a proper Chapter 163.01 Petition and deposit of monies is filed by the appropriating authorities." (Emphasis in original). In other words, Jeffers decided that he now wished to proceed only on his mandamus action to force the Boardto hold damages hearings pursuant to R.C. 163.01-163.63. This is evidenced by the following statement from the trial court at a hearing held on November 16, 2009: Jeffers's attorney stated, "[y]our Honor, I think you've accurately summarized the status of the proceedings."
{¶9} The trial court issued an order that dismissed Jeffers's appeals on December 16, 2009. Jeffers appealed this dismissal on January 15, 2010. The trial court then issued the separate writ of mandamus on April 5, 2010. The Board appealed the issuance of the writ on May 4, 2010.
{¶10} In case number 10CA03, Jeffers assigns the following error for our review: "The Trial Court erred in dismissing Appellant's road closure appeal, which was based upon an express condition that had not yet been satisfied."
{¶11} In case number 10CA15, the Board assigns the following six errors for our review: I. "JEFFERS HAS RECEIVED THE HEARINGS ORDERED BY THIS COURT IN ITS RULING INRICHARD L. JEFFERS V. BOARD OF ATHENS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, CASE NO. 06CA39." II. "JEFFERS IS NOT ENTITLED TO A REVISED CODE CHAPTER 163 HEARING HEREIN BECAUSE REVISED CODE SECTION 5553.11 NO LONGER REQUIRES SUCH HEARINGS IN ROAD VACATION MATTERS." III. "JEFFERS SUSTAINED NO
DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE VACATION OF ALEXANDER TOWNSHIP ROAD[] 548 BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE USED ALEXANDER TOWNSHIP ROAD 548 FOR AN INGRESS AND EGRESS ONTO HIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION." IV. "THE VACATION OF ALEXANDER TOWNSHIP ROADS 548 AND 554 HAS NOT CHANGED JEFFERS USE OF THE ROADWAY BECAUSE THE VACATION OF ROADS BY PRESCRIPTIONS DO NOT CLOSE THE ROADS BUT MERELY CONVERT THEM TO PRIVAT[E] DRIVES WHICH ABUTTING LAND OWNERS MAY CONTINUE TO USE." V. "JEFFERS MAY NOT USE HIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AS SUPPORT OF LOSS OF VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF THE VACTION OF ALEXANDER TOWNSHIP ROAD 548." And, VI. "THE VACATION OF ALEXANDER TOWNSHIP ROADS [54]8 AND 554 DID NOT LANDLOCK JEFFERS' PROPERTY."
{¶12} We first consider Jeffers's appeal from the trial court's dismissal of his appeals challenging the vacation of the roads. Essentially, the trial court dismissed these appeals under the authority of Civ.R. 41(A)(2). This rule provides that "a claim shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." Civ.R. 41(A)(2).
{¶13} We review the decision of a trial court to dismiss an action under Civ.R. 41(A)(2) for an abuse of discretion. Edwards v. Reser, Ottawa App. No. OT-07-022, 2007-Ohio-6520, at ¶39, citing Capital One Bank v. Woten, 169 Ohio App.3d 13, 2006-Ohio-4848, at ¶14, in turn citing Douthitt v. Garrison (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 254, 256.
{¶14} "An abuse of discretion connotes more than a mere error of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable." Pryor v. Pryor, Ross App. No. 09CA3096, 2009-Ohio-6670, at ¶22, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. In order to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, "the result must be so palpably and grossly violative of fact or logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but the perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but the defiance of judgment, not the exercise of reason but instead passion or bias." Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254, 256, 1996-Ohio-159.
{¶15} In the November hearing quoted above, the trial court explained that if Jeffers no longer wished to contest the vacation of the roads the trial court would "have to dismiss the appeals and the [Board] would have been successful in closing the roads." Jeffers then agreed with this statement as a summary of the proceedings. The trial court evidently understood this as Jeffers requesting that the trial court dismiss the appeals in cases 04CI0282 and 04CI0324. At the end of the hearing the trial court stated it would "assume I could dismiss two of the three files here." Jeffers's counsel raised no objections or qualms before the trial court in regard to this statement. This being so, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Jeffers's appeals.
{¶16} Accordingly, we overrule Jeffers's sole assignment of error.
{¶17} We now turn to the Board's appeal from the trial court's issuance of the writ of mandamus. Before we consider the Board's assignments of error, we first consider Jeffers's argument that the writ is not a final appealable order because the order granting the writ did not address other claims contained in the complaint for mandamus.
In short, Jeffers contends that the order fails to resolve other claims between the parties that touch on the same facts as the mandamus claim.
{¶18} "Ohio law provides that appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the final orders or judgments of inferior court...
To continue reading
Request your trial