City of Dublin v. Pewamo Ltd.
954 N.E.2d 1225
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Dublin seeks to take ~3 acres of Pewamo's 60-acre tract for SR 161 improvements, leaving ~57 acres as residue.
- Property was purchased by Therll Clagg in 1999, formed Pewamo Ltd., and used for farming; zoned agricultural.
- SR 161 project plan included potential high-density office/R&D development as part of Central Ohio Innovation Center.
- Access to the property existed via dirt/gravel farm drives; a roundabout access point existed but was closed, with potential future use contemplated.
- Trial: Pewamo claimed substantial residue damages due to limited access; Dublin argued there was adequate access; jury awarded Pewamo $685,051 for the taking and zero for residue; multiple evidentiary and instructional challenges were raised and reviewed.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not err on the challenged issues and that damages to the residue were not proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May future access be considered for residue damages? | Pewamo contends future access via roundabout should be ignored as speculative. | Dublin argues the roundabout access, though closed now, is a reasonably foreseeable element under plans. | Trial court's handling of roundabout access evidence affirmed. |
| Instruction on future access vs most damaging use standard? | Pewamo claims instructions should force the most damaging use view including future access. | Dublin asserts no promised future benefits; jury should consider plans and foreseeable uses. | Courts allowed broad consideration of plans; not limited to no-access scenario. |
| Internal circuity of travel instruction? | Pewamo sought instruction defining circuity of travel due to removal of farm drives. | Dublin argued removal did not impair internal circulation for development. | Instruction rejected as misleading; no impairment to internal circulation proven. |
| Admissibility of appraisal report/testimony from Dublin's appraiser? | Horner's later appraisal should be excluded as not current to the taking. | Weiler's appraisal served as floor; Horner's was allowed under statute constraints. | Horner's appraisal not admitted; Pewamo cannot exploit error; Weiler's appraisal can be treated as floor. |
| Is zero residue-damages award against weight of the evidence? | Evidence supports significant residue value loss due to limited access. | Evidence supports no residue damages given available access and plans. | Verdict not against the weight of the evidence; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilliard v. First Indus., L.P., 158 Ohio App.3d 792 (2004-Ohio-5836) (measures loss to residue; ingress/egress loss considered)
- Masheter v. Hoffman, 34 Ohio St.2d 213 (1973) (damages limited to reasonably foreseeable losses)
- Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Astorhurst Land Co., 18 Ohio St.3d 268 (1985) (application of Civ.R. 51; jury instruction standards in land-appropriation)
- Holler, 7 Ohio St. 220 (1857) (limits on compensation where future implied improvements exist)
- Thieken v. Proctor, 180 Ohio App.3d 154 (2008-Ohio-6960) (internal circuity and access restrictions on developed property)