2020 Ohio 5418
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Terry Brown was investigated for alleged domestic-terrorism threats; police executed a search warrant at his home and seized roughly 20 items (guns, computers, electronic media, etc.).
- Brown was later acquitted at retrial and sued the City of Cincinnati for replevin (return of property) or, alternatively, conversion, and for damage to two vehicles.
- The City’s records list about 20 seized items; Brown alleges 30–35 items were taken, including 10–15 items not in the City’s inventory ("Unlisted Property").
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the City on the vehicle claims but denied summary judgment as to the personal items and rejected the City’s immunity defenses; the City appealed under R.C. 2744.02(C).
- The appellate court held it could review only the immunity question (R.C. 2744.02(C) limits appellate jurisdiction to immunity rulings), and analyzed whether immunity applies separately to Brown’s replevin claim and conversion claims for listed vs. unlisted items.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction: May the court review merits now? | Trial-court denial of SJ was correct; full review warranted. | R.C. 2744.02(C) allows appeal of denial of immunity; City seeks review of immunity and merits. | Court limited review to immunity only and dismissed any attempt to decide merits for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether R.C. 2744 immunity bars replevin (return of property) | Replevin seeks possession (not damages); immunity does not apply. | Immunity should apply to bar suit. | Replevin (claim for return of property) is not covered by R.C. Chapter 2744’s damage-only immunity; immunity denied as to replevin. |
| Whether City is immune for conversion of Listed Property (items in warrant/inventory) | Conversion claim valid; City wrongfully detained items. | Listed items were seized under a search-warrant/police function; governmental immunity applies. | City entitled to immunity for conversion of Listed Property because seizure occurred pursuant to a governmental police function and no exception applies. |
| Whether City is immune for conversion of Unlisted Property (items not in City reports) | Brown says City still possesses additional items; conversion claim stands. | City says it never possessed those items / they were not seized in a police function. | City failed to meet its initial summary-judgment burden as to Unlisted Property; immunity denied as to Unlisted Property and fact issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (final-order requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (denial of summary judgment is generally not a final, appealable order)
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451 (establishes three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- R.K. v. Little Miami Golf Ctr., 1 N.E.3d 833 (application of the three-tier immunity framework)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden to point to evidentiary materials showing no genuine issue)
- State v. Prescott, 42 Ohio St.3d 65 (replevin is the remedy to recover possession of personal property)