Brinson v. Akron Hous. Appeals Bd.
2017 Ohio 7687
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Property owner Evis Brinson received a demolition order from the Akron Department of Neighborhood Assistance after a hearing before the Akron Housing Appeals Board concerning 919 Vernon Odom Boulevard.
- Brinson filed an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, arguing (1) the trial court should admit additional evidence under R.C. 2506.03(A)(2), and (2) the Board violated his due-process right by not acting impartially.
- The trial court denied Brinson’s motion to supplement the administrative record, stating there were no evidentiary or procedural deficiencies under R.C. 2506.03(A), and on the merits affirmed the Board’s demolition order as supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence.
- On appeal to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Brinson asserted three assignments of error, the primary one being deprivation of due process via a nonimpartial tribunal.
- The appellate court declined to decide the due-process impartiality question in the first instance, held the trial court erred by not addressing it, sustained Brinson’s first assignment of error, reversed the common pleas judgment, and remanded for the trial court to address Brinson’s due-process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brinson was denied due process because the Board was not impartial | Board proceedings violated Brinson’s right to due process; trial court should have considered impartiality claim | Trial court implicitly found no procedural or evidentiary deficiencies and affirmed Board decision | Appellate court: trial court erred by failing to address impartiality due-process claim; remand for trial court to consider it first |
| Whether the trial court should have supplemented the administrative record under R.C. 2506.03(A)(2) | Trial court should admit additional evidence to resolve due-process and other claims | Trial court denied supplementation, finding no deficiencies warranting extra evidence | Remanded: appellate court declined to decide supplementation because trial court must address due-process issue first |
| Whether the Board abused its discretion in ordering demolition | Brinson argued abuse of discretion and lack of supporting substantial evidence | Board/City argued decision supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence | Premature: appellate court did not resolve because remand required for due-process inquiry |
| Whether the notice of violation satisfied due process | Brinson contended notice was insufficient | City maintained notice complied with due process | Premature: not addressed on appeal pending trial court reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 81 Ohio St.3d 608 (discusses appellate review limits in administrative appeals)
- Independence v. Office of Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (addresses standard for reviewing trial-court decisions in administrative appeals)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (establishes that appellate review asks whether trial court’s decision is unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence)