2018 Ohio 3030
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Banker's Choice bought the dilapidated Davis Furniture Building on Main Street and sought a certificate of appropriateness to demolish it under Cincinnati Municipal Code historic-preservation provisions.
- Three local redevelopment entities (3CDC, Grandin Properties, Tender Mercies) made offers to buy the property, some above assessed value; none consummated a purchase.
- The Historic Conservation Board denied the demolition certificate; the Zoning Board of Appeals affirmed, finding Banker's Choice failed to show it would be deprived of all economically viable uses without demolition.
- Banker's Choice appealed to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court; a magistrate vacated the administrative decisions, found due-process defects, rejected the offers as bona fide, and ordered issuance of the demolition certificate.
- The trial court overruled the city’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, found at least one offer in good faith, but nonetheless concluded lack of sale supported economic-hardship findings and ordered issuance of the demolition certificate; it granted in part the city’s preliminary-injunction request (safety repairs only).
- The city appealed; the court of appeals reversed the portion ordering the demolition certificate, affirmed the limited preliminary-injunction ruling, and remanded for application of the proper statutory standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Banker's Choice) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly substituted its judgment for the Zoning Board on issuance of demolition certificate | Banker's Choice: magistrate and trial court correctly found economic hardship and due-process failings in administrative process; demolition certificate warranted | City: trial court exceeded limited review on administrative appeals and improperly weighed evidence rather than applying legal standards | Held: Court of appeals reversed trial court on certificate issuance—trial court erred in its legal application and in truncating required statutory analysis (remanded) |
| Whether the court applied the correct statutory test (Cincinnati Mun. Code 1435-09-2(b)) for economic hardship | Banker's Choice: testified and put on evidence satisfaction of the three statutory factors (deprivation of all economically viable use; investment-backed expectations; owner-caused hardship) | City: Zoning Board correctly applied statute; trial court failed to defer and misapplied law | Held: Trial court focused improperly on failure to sell and failed to complete required multi-factor statutory analysis; legal error requiring remand |
| Validity/good faith of third-party purchase offers as relevant to hardship showing | Banker's Choice: offers were illusory/not bona fide and did not relieve hardship | City: offers were bona fide and their failure to close undermines claim of economic hardship | Held: Court of appeals criticized trial court’s reliance on non-sale as dispositive; remand required to apply statutory factors objectively (no final ruling on bona fides) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying part of city’s preliminary-injunction motion (repairs/rehab) | Banker's Choice: opposed broad injunctive repairs given demolition approval | City: sought broader injunction to require repairs beyond public-safety measures | Held: Court of appeals affirmed trial court’s limited preliminary-injunction order (public-safety repairs) as within trial court’s sound discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318 (discusses scope of review under R.C. 2506.04 and limits on appellate review)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (clarifies limited scope of appellate review in administrative appeals)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (addresses weighing evidence in administrative appeals and trial-court role)
- AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (standard for reviewing injunctive relief and sound-reasoning requirement)
- Garono v. State, 37 Ohio St.3d 171 (discretionary standard for injunctions)
- Faber v. Queen City Terminals, Inc., 93 Ohio App.3d 197 (trial-court discretion on injunctive relief)