State v. Zehringer
| Decision Date | 27 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 10-13-18 |
| Citation | 2014 Ohio 2241 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO EX REL. JEAN A. KARR REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL., RELATORS-APPELLEES, v. JAMES ZEHRINGER, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Mercer County Common Pleas Court
Judgment Affirmed
APPEARANCES:
Scott D. Phillips and Brian W. Fox for Appellants
Thomas H. Fusonie for Appellees
{¶1} Respondents-appellants, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and its director, James Zehringer (collectively, "ODNR"), appeal the judgment of the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas granting relators-appellees, Jean A. Karr Revocable Trust, Chad M. Knapke, Andrea M. Knapke, Mark L. Knapke Revocable Living Trust, Timothy A. Knapke, William J. Ransbottom, Gale A. Thomas, Nelda G. Thomas, Agnello Trust, and Powell Living Trust (collectively, "Relators"), a writ of mandamus ordering ODNR to deposit with the clerk of court money equal to the values of the permanent and perpetual flowage easements of which ODNR has taken possession and any damages to the residue of the Relators' properties as determined by ODNR. Because Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution requires that compensation "first be made in money, or first secured by a deposit of money" when private property is taken for public use, and because the Relators have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. (Emphasis added.)
{¶2} In State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, the Court determined that landowners located downstream from the western spillway of Grand Lake St. Marys—including the Relators—were entitled to compensation under Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution for property ODNR had taken as a result of flooding caused by the spillway ODNR constructedand ODNR's lake-level-management practices. Id. at ¶ 59-83. (See also Complaint, Doc. No. 3, ¶ 2-3). The Court granted the landowners' writ compelling ODNR to "commence appropriation proceedings to determine the amount of their taking of the property." Doner at ¶ 86. The Court further stated that "[t]he determination of the extent of the taking will be made by the court presiding over the appropriation proceeding." Id.
{¶3} Following Doner, in December 2012, ODNR initiated appropriation proceedings against the Relators in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No. 3, ¶ 10, 18-24). At the time ODNR filed the appropriation proceedings against the Relators, ODNR did not file with the clerk of court money deposits in the amounts of ODNR's appraisals of the properties. (Id., ¶ 10).
{¶4} On April 3, 2013, the Relators filed an original action in mandamus in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas seeking to compel ODNR to file with the clerk of court "deposits in the amount of the State's appraisals in the appropriation proceedings." (Doc. No. 3). In their complaint for a writ of mandamus and memorandum in support, the Relators argued that Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter 163 require that ODNR file deposits at the time of filing its appropriation proceedings. (Id., ¶ 12); (Doc. No. 6).
{¶5} On April 30, 2013, ODNR filed a motion for an extension of time to respond, which the trial court granted. (Doc. Nos. 12-13).
{¶6} On June 5, 2013, ODNR filed its answer to the Relators' complaint for a writ of mandamus. (Doc. No. 19). The next day, ODNR filed its memorandum in opposition to the Relators' complaint, arguing that mandamus is inappropriate because Ohio law does not impose a clear legal duty to file deposits in appropriation proceedings and because the Relators have an adequate remedy at law. (Doc. No. 20).
{¶7} On August 16, 2013, the trial court heard oral argument concerning the Relators' complaint for a writ of mandamus. (Doc. No. 24). On October 2, 2013, the trial court issued a judgment entry and decision granting the writ and ordering ODNR to deposit with the clerk of court by October 31, 2013 "money equal to the value of the permanent and perpetual flowage easements of which it has taken possession in the matters it has initiated against the relators together with the damages, if any, to the residue of the individual relators' property as determined by ODNR * * *." (Doc. No. 29). The trial court also ordered a hearing on November 4, 2013 for the issue of attorney fees. (Id.).
{¶8} On October 22, 2013, the trial court filed an amended judgment entry finding no just cause for delay and certifying the October 2, 2013 decision as a final, appealable order under Civ.R. 54(A). (Doc. No. 31).
{¶9} On October 25, 2013, ODNR filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's October 22, 2013 amended judgment entry and a motion to stay execution of the trial court's judgment pending appeal. (Doc. Nos. 34, 33). On November 12, 2013, the trial court granted ODNR's motion to stay pending appeal.
{¶10} ODNR raises two assignments of error. We elect to address the assignments of error together.
The trial court erred by granting a writ of mandamus where ODNR had no clear legal duty to deposit money at the time of filing a petition for appropriation.
Assignment of Error No. II
The trial court erred by granting a writ of mandamus where the appropriation case provided an adequate forum to litigate the merits of the underlying issues.
{¶11} In its first assignment of error, ODNR argues that it had no clear legal duty to deposit money with the clerk of court because R.C. 163.06(A), governing deposits, uses the term "may," indicative of discretion. ODNR further argues that Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution—the "Takings Clause"—like R.C. 163.06(A), does not set forth a clear legal duty to deposit the money. ODNR asserts that the Takings Clause and R.C. 163.06(A) should be interpreted to avoid any conflict between the two and that because R.C. 163.06(A) does not set forth a clear duty to deposit money, neither does the Takings Clause.
{¶12} In its second assignment of error, ODNR argues that mandamus is inappropriate because the Relators have adequate legal remedies that they did not pursue. Specifically, ODNR argues that the Relators could have filed in the appropriation proceedings counterclaims for declaratory relief or motions requesting that the court require deposits.
{¶13} To grant a writ of mandamus, a court must conclude that the relator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested, that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that the relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. Doner, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, at ¶ 57; State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29 (1983). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy "issued with great caution and discretion and only when the way is clear." State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 166 (1977).
{¶14} A court on appeal reviews a decision to issue or deny the writ under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967), paragraph ten of the syllabus; State ex rel. Solomon v. Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund Bd. of Trustees, 72 Ohio St.3d 62, 64 (1995). An abuse of discretion connotes an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude on the lower court's part. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 107 (1995).
{¶15} The parties do not dispute the facts material to our determination of this case. In addition, although ODNR disputes whether it has a clear legal duty to deposit money, it does not dispute the first prerequisite to granting a writ of mandamus—namely, a clear legal right to the requested relief. Accordingly, this case presents two legal questions related to the first and second assignments of error, respectively: (1) whether ODNR, at the time of filing the appropriation proceedings, had a legal duty under the Takings Clause or R.C. Chapter 163 to deposit money with the clerk of court in amounts equal to the values of the permanent and perpetual flowage easements of which ODNR has taken possession and any damages to the residue of the properties; and, (2) whether the Relators have any plain and adequate remedy at law.
{¶16} As we will explain in greater detail below, the Relators were entitled to the writ of mandamus they sought, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting it. The Takings Clause required that ODNR compensate the Relators or make a money deposit before taking the Relators' property. By the time ODNR filed the appropriation proceedings, it had already taken the Relators' properties. Doner, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, at ¶ 83, 86. Therefore, compensation or deposits by ODNR were overdue under the Takings Clause by the time it filed the appropriation proceedings, and ODNR had a clear legal duty to make depositsunder the Takings Clause. Moreover, the Relators did not have any plain and adequate remedies at law precluding a writ of mandamus.
{¶17} We first address the clear-legal-duty prerequisite to granting a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court of Ohio recently explained the duties of courts when it comes to determining the existence of a clear legal duty:
Although it is true that we cannot create the legal duty enforceable in a mandamus case, State ex rel. Baroni v. Colletti, 130 Ohio St.3d 208, 2011-Ohio-5351, 957 N.E.2d 13, ¶ 22, it is equally true that "courts in mandamus actions have a duty to construe constitutions, charters, and statutes, if necessary, and thereafter evaluate whether the relator has established the required clear legal right and clear legal duty," and in doing so, the courts have a "duty to resolve all doubts concerning the legal interpretation of these provisions." State ex rel. Fattlar v. Boyle, 83 Ohio St.3d 123, 125,...
To continue reading
Request your trial