Bacak v. Ventling, 2016 Ohio 4737

Background

Property owners on St. Mary’s Drive (the "Sablecreek Plaintiffs") were ordered by the county Board of Health to abandon septic systems and connect to a privately constructed sewer extension built by Gary Ventling under R.C. 307.73.
Ventling and the Trumbull County Commissioners entered a private-construction agreement; Ventling hired contractors without competitive bidding and submitted a cost statement of $103,460 (vs. $61,000 estimate). The Sanitary Engineer approved $74,179 after deleting some items.
The commissioners’ resolution authorizing the private extension was not filed with the county auditor until 17 months after project completion; affected owners received no timely notice of the agreement or of the project costs before construction.
The Sanitary Engineer’s agent (Walton) had sole, final authority to approve reimbursable costs under local practice, with no hearing, objection procedure, or judicial review available to affected owners under R.C. 307.73.
Plaintiffs sued claiming R.C. 307.73 violated procedural due process; the trial court/magistrate found the statute unconstitutional as applied and the trial court additionally declared it unconstitutional on its face. The commissioners dismissed their appeal; Ventling alone appealed but did not challenge the facial ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 307.73 violates procedural due process as applied to these owners	R.C. 307.73 provided no meaningful notice or opportunity to be heard before charging owners; therefore it violated due process	Ventling argued owners had actual or constructive notice (presence of construction, later filing, successors’ notice) and that the statute allowed reimbursement	Court upheld that statute is unconstitutional as applied here (but appellant did not appeal facial ruling); lack of timely constructive notice and no process to contest costs violated due process
Whether R.C. 307.73 is unconstitutional on its face	Plaintiffs argued statute lacks procedural safeguards in all applications (no required cost disclosure, no hearing, no appeal)	Defendants did not pursue appeal of facial ruling	Trial court and appellate court affirmed facial invalidity; statute fails to provide minimal due-process protections
Whether actual notice (seeing construction) or successor-in-interest status cured notice defects	Plaintiffs: actual knowledge of construction did not give notice of the agreement, costs, or tie-in obligations; successors can assert predecessors’ defects	Ventling relied on Edgar v. Hines and argued actual notice sufficed; also argued Hanysh successors bought after filing so had constructive notice	Court held actual observation of construction did not constitute meaningful notice of costs/tie-in obligation; successors may assert predecessors’ lack of notice
Whether trial court remedy (allow tie-in at no cost) effects an unconstitutional taking	Ventling: denying reimbursement is a taking of his property/right to contract compensation	Plaintiffs: remedy required by invalid statute and public-health rule requires connection regardless; Ventling’s reimbursement right rests on unconstitutional statute	Court rejected taking claim: Ventling’s claimed right derives from an unconstitutional statute; constructive-notice requirement would in any event bar reimbursement here; remedy upheld

Key Cases Cited

DeMoise v. Dowell, 10 Ohio St.3d 92 (1984) (upholds health-code requirement to abandon septic and connect when sewer is accessible)
Edgar v. Hines, 35 Ohio App.3d 23 (1987) (actual notice can suffice under R.C. 307.73 in lieu of constructive notice)
Mateo v. State, 57 Ohio St.3d 50 (1991) (procedural due process centers on notice and opportunity to be heard)
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard are essential elements of due process)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process balancing test regarding notice and hearing)
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (2010) (takings protection depends on existing state-law property rights)
State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144 (2004) (statutes are presumed constitutional and challenger must prove otherwise)