2015 Ohio 3089
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Property originally granted a 1912 stormwater easement to Portage County giving the county perpetual rights to maintain a pipeline terminating at the edge of Collin’s Pond (on servient estate now owned by Byers DiPaola Castle, LLC).
- In 1997 the County replaced a 24-inch pipe with a 48-inch pipe as part of an improvement project; evidence indicated the then-owner (DiPaola) knew of and observed the work.
- Harvest Rose acquired adjacent land in 2007 and planned a residential project; a 2008 Portage County Roadway Work Permit authorized tying two 12-inch storm outlets into the County’s existing 48-inch storm sewer.
- Byers sued (counts: breach of contract/trespass; declaratory judgment; injunctive relief; taking) alleging the County and Harvest Rose exceeded the easement scope and caused a taking; motions to dismiss were converted to summary judgment motions and granted for defendants.
- The trial court held many claims time-barred and found declaratory/injunctive relief unjustified; this appeal followed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to summary judgment | Conversion was improper and violated constitutional rights | Court gave notice and opportunity to submit evidence; conversion permissible | Court: conversion within discretion where parties had notice and chance to respond; no reversible error |
| Statute of limitations for breach of easement/contract (Count One) | 15-year statute for written contracts (former R.C. 2305.06) applies | Claim involves scope of an easement (interest in land); 10-year statute (R.C. 2305.14) applies; plaintiff alleged no damages | Court: 10-year statute applies; Count One time-barred and plaintiff failed to allege specific damages |
| Continuing-violation tolling for 1997 Improvement Project and takings (Counts One & Four) | County’s ongoing control/continuing violation tolled limitations (relying on Doner) | 1997 work was a single completed act; continuous-violation doctrine inapplicable; accrual occurred when acts were done or should have been discovered | Court: Doner inapplicable; single past action does not toll; claims accruing from 1997 are time-barred; Byers had notice or should have discovered the work |
| Declaratory and injunctive relief | Relief needed to prevent further unauthorized use of easement / tie-ins | Prior administrative and appellate rulings, and lack of concrete present injury, mean no justiciable controversy or irreparable harm | Court: no justiciable controversy or clear irreparable harm shown; injunctive/declaratory claims fail; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party opposing summary judgment must produce specific facts)
- Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 2011) (continuous conduct on actor's land may toll limitations for property damage)
- State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie Metroparks, 124 Ohio St.3d 449 (Ohio 2010) (accrual and limitations for takings/injury to real property)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality standard for genuine issue of fact)