City of Dublin v. Friedman
101 N.E.3d 1137
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- City of Dublin filed an appropriation action and deposited $25,080 seeking a 0.100-acre permanent bike-path easement and a 0.096-acre temporary easement on Karen Friedman’s property as part of a road/roundabout/shared-use path project.
- CHKRS, LLC was an unrecorded lessee under a lease with an option to purchase; paragraph 31 of the lease stated monies from Dublin/ODOT were payable to Friedman "until the Lessee has procured on the purchase option."
- At a March 4, 2016 status conference CHKRS stipulated it had not exercised the option; CHKRS later emailed notice of exercise (March 7, 2016) but took no escrow/closing steps.
- Trial court denied CHKRS leave to amend, concluded CHKRS did not "procure" the option (no closing/deposit), granted Friedman withdrawal of the deposit, and held Dublin properly used quick-take for the project.
- Dublin recorded the easements, paid the remainder under a settlement, completed construction; CHKRS appealed and argued option/procurement, lease interpretation, quick-take authority, and denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CHKRS exercise and/or procure the lease purchase option? | CHKRS had not exercised/procured; monies belong to Friedman. | CHKRS argued it exercised the option (March 7 email) and thus procured rights and funds. | CHKRS was bound by its stipulation it had not exercised; email was notice only and CHKRS never completed procurement (no escrow/closing). |
| Does ¶31 of the lease entitle Friedman to the deposit and permit her to convey easements? | ¶31 controls and pays monies to Friedman until lessee procures; Friedman entitled to deposit and to settle/convey. | CHKRS argued clause should not defeat its compensable leasehold once it exercised option. | Court construed contract: "exercise" ≠ "procure"; CHKRS did not procure, so Friedman was entitled to funds and could convey. |
| Could Dublin use R.C. 163.06 quick-take to acquire easements for a shared-use path adjacent to a road? | Dublin: quick-take applies where appropriation is for making/repairing roads; the shared-use path is an appurtenance to roadway safety. | CHKRS: quick-take improper for a shared-use path and council lacked authority to use quick-take for that purpose. | Trial court found quick-take proper as the path was a meaningful appurtenance to road improvements; appellate court found the quick-take issue moot as CHKRS lacked standing to recover. |
| Was denial of leave to amend the answer an abuse of discretion? | Denial was proper due to prejudice, lateness, and the need to expedite appropriation proceedings. | CHKRS claimed new facts/cross-claims matured after complaint and sought to add them. | Court did not abuse discretion: amendment would prejudice parties and delay matters; original answer protected CHKRS rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weir v. Wiseman, 2 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 1982) (discusses purpose of R.C. Chapter 163 and uniform eminent domain procedures)
- State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 65 Ohio St.3d 323 (Ohio 1992) (lessee has standing as an "owner" under R.C. Chapter 163)
- Pokorny v. Intern. Hod Carriers Bldg. & Common Laborers Union, 38 Ohio St.2d 177 (Ohio 1974) (bifurcated proceedings and apportionment of award among multiple interests)
- Sowers v. Schaeffer, 155 Ohio St. 454 (Ohio) (value of property as a whole with later apportionment among interests)
- Ritchie v. Cordray, 10 Ohio App.3d 213 (Ohio Ct. App.) (explains nature of an option contract and that exercise alone does not create a completed sale absent closing/tender)
- Worthington v. Carskadon, 18 Ohio St.2d 222 (Ohio 1969) (quick-take invalid where not for roads; remedies include injunction and damages; completed construction can moot injunctive relief)
- Cullen & Vaughn Co. v. Bender Co., 122 Ohio St. 82 (Ohio) (doctrine of equitable conversion: compensation represents the land and is subject to rights in the land)