State v. Athens Cnty. Comm'rs
| Decision Date | 06 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15CA27 |
| Citation | 2016 Ohio 8119 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., RICHARD JEFFERS, Plaintiff/Relator-Appellant, v. ATHENS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. Defendants/Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
APPEARANCES:
John P. Lavelle and Robert R. Rittenhouse, Lavelle and Associates, Athens, Ohio, for Appellant Richard L. Jeffers.
Mark Landes and Aaron M. Glasgow, Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee Board of County Commissioners of Athens County, Ohio.
Keller Blackburn, Athens County Prosecutor, for Appellee Board of County Commissioners of Athens County, Ohio.1
Robert H. Stoffers and Michael S. Loughry, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee and Cross-Appellant Board of Trustees of Alexander Township, Ohio.
{¶1} Appellant Richard Jeffers appeals the following decisions and judgment entries of the Athens County Common Pleas Court:
Jeffers contends the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that a pro tanto taking of his property did not occur, and thus, denying and dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus; (2) dismissing his remaining Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code claims based on the doctrine of issue preclusion; and (3) denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint to assert additional claims. For the reasons which follow, we find no merit to the arguments made under Appellant's first and third assignments of error. However, we sustain the second assignment of error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶2} Richard Jeffers owns approximately 530 acres in Alexander Township, Athens County, Ohio. In 2004, the Athens County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), voted to vacate Red Lane Road and Jeffers Road, public roads which abut Jeffers' property. Since 2004, litigation between Jeffers and the defendants, Board, and the Board of Trustees of Alexander Township ("Trustees") has continued. At the outset, Jeffers alleged a de facto taking of his property and collusion between county officeholders and entities in doing so. More than once, the parties and this Court have commented on the "tortured history" of the Jeffers' matter, which has made its way to this Court on several occasions. See Bd. of Cty. Commrs. of Athens Cty. v. Goldsberry, 4th Dist. Athens No. 05CA18, 2005-Ohio-4705; and Jeffers v. Athens County Commrs., 4th Dist. Athens No. 06CA39, 2007-Ohio-2458, paragraphs 2-5, ("Jeffers I") for a detailed factual and procedural history.
{¶3} Relevant to the case before us now on appeal, 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. Jeffers later amended his complaint to add various claims for money damages under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code. On April 5, 2010, the trial court issued the writ of mandamus. The Board appealed. In Jeffers v. Athens County Commrs, 4th Dist. Athens Nos. 10CA3, 10CA15, 2011-Ohio-675, ¶ 5, ("Jeffers II"), we held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Board to comply with Revised Code Chapter 163. Jeffers II was decided on February 9, 2011.
{¶4} However, in April 2011, the Board voted to rescind its prior decisions to vacate the two roads. Jeffers appealed this decision. The Board also filed a motion to dismiss Jeffers' constitutional claims. On September 6, 2011, the trial court issued a decision denying the Board's motion to dismiss. The trial court further found Appellant was not entitled to R.C. 163 proceedings because, in the interim, the vacation process had been abandoned prior to there being a legal taking of Jeffers' property.
{¶5} In the September 6, 2011 decision, however, the trial court also held there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether the Board physically interfered with Jeffers' use of his roads to such an extent that there was a pro tanto taking of his property. The trial court subsequently scheduled a bench trial to hear evidence regarding the alleged interference. On September 8, 2011, Jeffers filed a motion to lift the stay of his constitutional claims and further requested permission to amend his complaint to assert a claim for retaliation and promotion of Ex Post Facto legislation in order to unlawfully affect his constitutional rights.
{¶6} The trial court heard the mandamus action on October 9 and 10, 2012. The court heard testimony from various witnesses. Additional facts gleaned from the witnesses' testimony will be set forth below, where relevant. Counsel filed post-trial briefs. On May 10, 2013, the trial court found as follows:
{¶7} Jeffers appealed. On October 7, 2013, this court found the trial court's decision was not a final appealable order. On October 8, 2013, the trial court filed a nunc pro tunc decision and judgment. However, on November 5, 2013, this Court again found the order not final and appealable due to Jeffers' remaining outstanding and unresolved Section 1983 claims.
{¶8} In April 2014, the parties filed briefs arguing the merits of the remaining federal claims. On June 23, 2015, the trial court dismissed Jeffers' federal claims, based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, and denied Jeffers' motion for leave to amend his complaint to add additional federal claims.
{¶9} On July 22, 2015, Jeffers' timely appeal of the trial court's October 8, 2013 and June 23, 2015 decisions followed. In addition, the Trustees assert one cross-assignment of error.
{¶10} We review a trial court's decision on whether to issue a writ of mandamus under the abuse of discretion standard. Jeffers II, supra, at ¶ 27; Athens Cty. Commrs. v. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 4th Dist. Athens No. 06CA49, 2007-Ohio-6895, at ¶ 45, citing Truman v. Village of Clay Center, 160 Ohio App.3d 78, 825 N.E.2d 1182, 2005-Ohio-1385, (6th Dist.), at ¶ 16. "An abuse of discretion connotes more than a mere error of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable." Jeffers II, supra, at ¶ 14, quoting Pryor v. Pryor, 4th Dist. Ross No. 09CA3096, 2009-Ohio-6670, at ¶ 22, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 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, 662 N.E.2d 1.
{¶11} "Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." Jeffers II, supra, at ¶ 26; R.C. 2731.01. " 'Mandamus is the appropriate action to compel public authorities to institute appropriation proceedings where an involuntary taking of private property is alleged.' " State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 826 N.E.2d 832, 2005-Ohio-2163, at ¶ 11, quoting State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., 95 Ohio St.3d 59, 63, 765 N.E.2d 345, 2002-Ohio-1627. As we previously stated in Jeffers II, in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Jeffers must establish that he had a clear legal right to the requested relief, that the Board had a corresponding clear legal duty to comply, and that Jeffers has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Jeffers II, supra, at ¶ 27. See State ex rel. Savage v. Caltrider, 100 Ohio St.3d 363, 800 N.E.2d 358, 2003-Ohio-6806, at ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Ferguson v. Court of Claims of Ohio, Victims of Crime Div., 98 Ohio St.3d 399, 786 N.E.2d 43, 2003-Ohio-1631, at ¶ 10. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the appropriate standard of proof in mandamus cases is proof by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 55; State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 161, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967); State ex rel. Henslee v. Newman, 30 Ohio St.2d 324, 325, 59, 285 N.E.2d 54 (1972), Ohio Jurisprudence 2d (1959) 285, Section 37.
{¶12} Under the first assignment of error, Jeffers contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it denied his complaint for a writ of mandamus. Jeffers asserts that he submitted a totality of clear and convincing evidence at trial that there had been substantial or unreasonable interference with his property rights. However, the Board urges affirmance of the trial court's decision. The Board points out the trial court heard multiple witnesses and two days of testimony regarding Jeffers' use of his property. Jeffers submitted over 70 exhibits. The trial court also reviewed the record and considered lengthy post-trial briefs of the parties. The Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial