Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Roberta Schlegel experienced flooding in her basement after a portion of a roadway near her home collapsed, causing debris to block a drainage culvert. Schlegel sued Summit County for the flood damage, alleging negligence in maintaining the roadway. The county claimed political-subdivision immunity as a defense.The trial court and the Ninth District Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the county, concluding that the county was immune from liability under political-subdivision immunity laws. They determined that the negligent-roadway-maintenance exception to immunity did not apply because Schlegel was not a motorist or user of the roadway injured by the roadway condition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Ninth District's judgment. The court held that the exception to political-subdivision immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) for negligent failure to keep public roads in repair and free of obstructions is not limited to losses suffered by users of the roadway. The court found that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and it applies to any person who suffers loss to property caused by the political subdivision's negligence in maintaining public roads.The case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether the county's negligence in maintaining the roadway proximately caused the flooding and whether any defenses under R.C. 2744.03 could restore the county's immunity. View "Schlegel v. Summit County" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Ohio Edison Company and the Corder family over the use of herbicides on property subject to easements held by Ohio Edison. The easements, granted in 1948, allow Ohio Edison to maintain electrical transmission lines and to trim, cut, and remove trees, limbs, underbrush, or other obstructions that may interfere with or endanger their infrastructure.Initially, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, believing it fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction and remanded the case to resolve the ambiguity in the easements. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's jurisdictional ruling but vacated its analysis of the easements, remanding the case to the trial court.On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Corders, holding that the easements did not permit the use of herbicides. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding the easements ambiguous and concluding that they did not authorize the use of herbicides.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that the easements unambiguously grant Ohio Edison the right to remove vegetation and other obstructions. The court held that the term "remove" includes the use of herbicides, as the easements do not restrict the methods of removal. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to issue an entry awarding summary judgment to Ohio Edison. View "Corder v. Ohio Edison Co." on Justia Law

A property developer settled claims with the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and sought to assert a state-law claim for contribution against other companies involved in developing the properties. The developer, Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C., alleged that the franchisees, including Wilcox Development Group, L.L.C., failed to comply with the FHA in their construction and design of certain properties.The trial court dismissed the case, not on the grounds argued by Wilcox, but on the theory that if a state-law cause of action for contribution existed, it was preempted by federal law. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, and Epcon appealed the preemption issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that the trial court erred in deciding the case on the basis of federal preemption. The court emphasized principles of judicial restraint, noting that no party had argued for federal preemption and that courts should avoid deciding constitutional questions unless necessary. The court also highlighted that the preemption issue was hypothetical and should not have been addressed without first determining whether a state-law contribution claim was available.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether the facts alleged present a claim for relief under Ohio law. The court did not address the preemption issue, as it was not properly presented by the parties and was unnecessary to resolve at this stage. View "Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves a group of relators seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Lorain County Board of Elections to place a zoning-amendment referendum on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot. The relators had filed a referendum petition against a municipal ordinance that rezoned approximately 300 acres of property. However, the Board of Elections sustained a protest by intervening respondents, DBR Commercial Realty, L.L.C., and Kathryn Craig, and removed the referendum from the ballot, arguing that the relators failed to file a complete certified copy of the ordinance as required by R.C. 731.32.The relators initially received what they claimed were incomplete copies of the ordinance from the clerk of the Vermilion City Council. Despite knowing the copies were incomplete, they attempted to correct the deficiencies themselves by adding missing pages from the county recorder’s office. However, the copy they filed with the finance director was still missing two pages. The Board of Elections held a protest hearing and concluded that the relators did not strictly comply with R.C. 731.32, which requires a complete certified copy of the ordinance to be filed before circulating a referendum petition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and upheld the Board of Elections' decision. The court emphasized that R.C. 731.32 requires strict compliance, and the relators' failure to file a complete certified copy of the ordinance rendered their petition defective. The court denied the writ of mandamus, stating that the Board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in sustaining the protest and removing the referendum from the ballot. The court also denied various motions to strike evidence and for oral argument, but granted the relators' motion to amend the case caption. View "State ex rel. Brill v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

A group of landowners challenged the Ohio Tax Commissioner’s decision to set a woodland-clearing-cost rate of $1,000 per acre for the purpose of calculating the current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) of their properties for tax years 2015 through 2020. The landowners argued that the rate was too low and not based on reliable evidence, causing their woodlands to be overvalued and resulting in higher property taxes.The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) upheld the Tax Commissioner’s decision, finding that the Commissioner did not abuse her discretion in setting the $1,000 rate. The BTA concluded that the rate was within the Commissioner’s discretion and based on input from the agricultural advisory committee. The BTA also rejected the Tax Commissioner’s argument that some landowners lacked standing to challenge the CAUV entries for certain years.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the Tax Commissioner abused her discretion by adopting the $1,000 rate without reliable evidence or a sound reasoning process. The court noted that the decision was arbitrary and not supported by any fixed rules or standards. The court also found that the Tax Commissioner failed to comply with Ohio Administrative Code 5703-25-33, which requires obtaining information from reliable sources and ensuring that CAUV tables are accurate, reliable, and practical.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the BTA’s decision and remanded the case to the Tax Commissioner with instructions to adopt a woodland-clearing-cost rate that complies with the administrative code. The court emphasized that the Tax Commissioner must base the rate on reliable evidence and follow the prescribed standards. View "Adams v. Harris" on Justia Law

Shawn Valentine sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Lucas County Board of Elections to place a zoning referendum on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot. The referendum concerned a zoning amendment approved by the Spencer Township Board of Trustees, which rezoned a portion of property owned by Jeff Davis Properties, L.L.C. Valentine and others circulated a petition for the referendum but included a map that outlined the area originally requested for rezoning, not the smaller area actually rezoned by the trustees.The Lucas County Board of Elections reviewed the petition and found it contained the required number of valid signatures. However, Jeff Davis Properties filed a protest, arguing that the map included with the petition was not appropriate. The Board of Elections held a hearing and sustained the protest, deciding that the map did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 519.12(H), which mandates that a referendum petition be accompanied by an appropriate map of the area affected by the zoning proposal.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that the map submitted with the petition was misleading because it did not accurately reflect the area affected by the zoning resolution. The court found no evidence that the map was approved by the board of township trustees as reflecting the zoning amendment. Consequently, the court held that the Board of Elections did not abuse its discretion or act in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions when it sustained the protest and refused to place the referendum on the ballot. The writ of mandamus was denied, along with Valentine’s requests for costs and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Valentine v. Schoen" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement between Tera, L.L.C., and Rice Drilling D, L.L.C., and Gulfport Energy Corporation. The lease granted Rice Drilling and Gulfport Energy certain mineral rights in the geological formations known as the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale beneath Tera’s land. The dispute arose when Tera claimed that the defendants had intentionally drilled six wells into the Point Pleasant formation, which Tera argued was not included in the lease agreement.The trial court awarded summary judgment to Tera, concluding that the lease agreement clearly limited the rights granted to the defendants to the Marcellus and Utica formations and reserved rights to all other formations. The court also found that the defendants had trespassed in bad faith, and a jury awarded Tera over $40 million in damages.The Court of Appeals for Belmont County affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded that the lease language was unambiguous and that the phrase "Utica Shale" had a technical stratigraphic meaning that did not include the Point Pleasant formation.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the lease agreement was ambiguous because it did not clearly establish whether the Point Pleasant was or was not to be considered part of the Utica Shale. The court concluded that resolving the meaning of ambiguous terms in a contract is a matter of factual determination for the fact-finder. Therefore, the court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Vandercar, L.L.C. entered into a $36 million purchase contract for the Millennium Hotel in Cincinnati and then assigned its interest in the hotel to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority. The agreement stipulated that the Port would pay Vandercar a $5 million redevelopment fee if the Port issued bonds to redevelop the hotel within a year of its acquisition. The Port acquired the hotel and issued acquisition bonds, but it denied that the bonds were for redevelopment of the hotel, so it refused to pay the redevelopment fee. Vandercar sued the Port for breach of contract for failing to pay the redevelopment fee and also moved for prejudgment interest.The trial court found that Vandercar was entitled to the redevelopment fee and granted Vandercar’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. However, the trial court denied Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest, concluding that prejudgment interest could not be imposed on the Port since it was “an arm/instrumentality of the state.” Both parties appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decisions.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. The court held that the Port, a port authority created under R.C. 4582.22(A), is not exempt from the application of R.C. 1343.03(A), which entitles a creditor to prejudgment interest when the creditor receives a judgment for the payment of money due under a contract. Therefore, the Port may be held liable to pay prejudgment interest. The court remanded the case to the trial court to evaluate Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest under the correct standard. View "Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the decision of the lower court in a case involving AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C., et al. (AWMS) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). AWMS sought a writ of mandamus to compel the ODNR to initiate property appropriation proceedings, arguing that the state had effectuated a regulatory taking of AWMS’s property by suspending operations at its saltwater-injection well. The court of appeals initially granted summary judgment in favor of the state, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case, directing the court of appeals to weigh the parties' evidence related to AWMS’s total and partial takings claims.On remand, the court of appeals denied the writ, arguing that AWMS did not have a cognizable property interest for purposes of a takings analysis. AWMS appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court found that the court of appeals had failed to comply with its remand order to weigh the parties' evidence and had violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by revisiting whether AWMS had a cognizable property interest.The Supreme Court ruled that AWMS did possess a cognizable property interest in its leasehold right to operate the saltwater-injection well, a point that had been established in the previous appeal and was thus the law of the case. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case once again, instructing the lower court to weigh the evidence to determine whether a total or partial regulatory taking had occurred. View "State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the issue concerned whether a landlord or landlord's agent can prohibit a person from entering leased premises, even if that person has received permission from a tenant. The case arose when Antonio Randolph was banned from an apartment complex by the property manager and was then later arrested and charged with criminal trespass after he was discovered in his uncle's apartment at the complex, which his uncle had invited him to. The trial court found Randolph guilty of criminal trespass. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the city had to prove that Randolph had entered the premises without privilege, and that his uncle's invitation to the apartment contradicted this.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the Sixth District's decision. The court held that a landlord or landlord's agent generally may not exclude a person from rented premises such that the excluded person is considered a trespasser when on the premises even if the person received permission to enter the premises from a tenant of the property. The court noted that Ohio law provides that a landlord cedes his or her possessory interests in leased property to the tenant and therefore may not prohibit the tenant from inviting guests onto the property.However, the court also highlighted that a landlord can maintain control over access to a property if the landlord so desires, provided that this authority is reserved in the lease agreement. In the absence of such a provision in the lease agreement, a tenant may invite onto the property a person whom the landlord has sought to ban from the premises. The judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Randolph" on Justia Law