AMM Peric Property Invest., Inc. v. Cleveland, 2014 Ohio 821

Peric Property Investment, Inc. owned an outbuilding in Cleveland that was damaged by a drunk driver.
Four months of communication with Cleveland’s building department followed, during which a permit was sought but denied due to uncertainty whether the structure was residential or commercial.
Three days after the permit denial, the city demolished the outbuilding and an adjacent garage as an alleged emergency danger to life.
Peric sued for due process violations and negligence; the city counterclaimed for demolition costs.
The city moved for summary judgment arguing Peric should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the Board of Building Standards and Building Appeals; Peric argued such appeal would be futile because the demolition had occurred before notice.
The trial court concluded the administrative appeals process provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy and awarded demolition costs to the city; the appellate court reverses on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Peric must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit	Peric: exhaustion was futile because the board could not award monetary relief.	City: board review provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy.	No, exhaustion not established as adequate; remand for further proceedings.
Whether the administrative board could provide monetary relief for a takings claim	Peric sought monetary relief via post-deprivation review.	Board cannot award monetary damages under the ordinances.	Board lacks authority to award monetary damages; exhaustion not satisfied.
Whether the emergency demolition without proper notice was properly subject to administrative review	Pre-deprivation notice not required if emergency; board review could correct.	Emergency demolition justified under ordinances; board review unnecessary.	The majority found the administrative remedy inadequate; reformulation not required for this issue.

Noernberg v. Brook Park, 63 Ohio St.2d 26 (Ohio 1980) (exhaustion not absolute; futility may excuse)
Lieux v. Westlake, 154 Ohio St. 412 (Ohio 1951) (administrative remedy considerations for due process)
Dworning v. Euclid, 119 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 2008) (administrative expertise and record-building before court review)
Driscoll v. Austintown Assocs., 42 Ohio St.2d 263 (Ohio 1975) (exhaustion and futility concepts in administrative review)
Nemazee v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 56 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 1990) (purpose of exhaustion doctrine)