2022 Ohio 693
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- CR Hill, LLC sought approval to build townhomes (Hillsborough Townhomes Development) in Westlake and filed a four-count complaint after the city rejected the development plan. Counts 2–4 sought money damages (lost profits, plan costs, professional and carrying costs).
- Westlake answered asserting political-subdivision immunity and lack of standing.
- Westlake moved for summary judgment arguing CR Hill lacked standing and that the city was immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 for actions tied to plan review/approval.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, finding CR Hill had a contingent property interest sufficient for standing and concluding factual disputes existed about negligence/intentional conduct bearing on immunity.
- On appeal the Eighth District considered only the immunity question and held that reviewing and approving development plans is a governmental function under R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(p), so Westlake is immune and summary judgment for the city on Counts 2–4 must be entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Westlake is immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) for its review/denial of a development plan | Westlake’s plan-review was a proprietary, not governmental, function; city’s departure from its zoning code shows negligence and no immunity | Review/approval of plans under building/zoning codes is an enumerated governmental function; general immunity applies | Held: Plan review is a governmental function; Westlake entitled to immunity |
| Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) negligent-act exception applies | City negligently departed from its zoning code when rejecting a compliant plan, so exception applies | Exception limited to negligence in proprietary functions; not applicable to governmental functions like plan review | Held: Exception does not apply because plan review is governmental, not proprietary |
| Whether intentional-tort or other exceptions defeat immunity | Plaintiff suggested council/commission acted intentionally/arbitrarily, which could defeat immunity | Political subdivisions are not liable for intentional torts under R.C. 2744; no applicable exceptions shown | Held: No exception shown; intentional-tort arguments do not overcome immunity |
| Standing to sue over plan denial | CR Hill holds a contingent interest via an option owned by a related entity and would obtain the interest if plan approved | City argued CR Hill had no present interest in the vacant land and lacked standing | Held at trial: contingent interest sufficient for standing (trial-court finding was not disturbed on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (general rule that denial of summary judgment is not a final order)
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (order denying political-subdivision immunity is a final, appealable order)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (three-tiered analysis for political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (2003) (framework for immunity and exceptions under R.C. 2744)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (2010) (application of R.C. 2744 exceptions and defenses)
- Wilson v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 450 (1994) (treatment of intentional torts and governmental immunity)
- Blust v. Blue Ash, 177 Ohio App.3d 146 (2008) (administrative/declaratory review of rezoning—discussed but held inapposite to immunity analysis)
- Gillespie v. Stow, 65 Ohio App.3d 601 (1989) (administrative appeal addressing denial of conditionally permitted uses—discussed but not controlling on immunity)