Easley v. Akron, 2018 Ohio 2550

Appellant Ron Easley filed an administrative appeal (filed June 14, 2017) from a May 16, 2017 decision of the City of Akron Housing Appeals Board concerning property at 1550 East Avenue, Akron.
The City of Akron and the Housing Appeals Board moved to dismiss Easley’s appeal on September 1, 2017; Easley filed no written opposition in the trial-court record.
The Summit County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to dismiss on September 15, 2017, finding it lacked jurisdiction because Easley failed to file a notice of appeal with the Housing Appeals Board within 30 days and therefore did not perfect the appeal under Ohio law.
Easley appealed, arguing the trial court erred because he was not properly served with the motion to dismiss and was not given time to respond in violation of Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure rules 5 and 6.
The appellate court limited review to the trial-court record, found no record evidence that Easley lacked service or opportunity to respond, and therefore affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by granting the City’s motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction/perfection of appeal	Easley: Court erred because he was not properly served with the motion and was denied time to respond (violations of Civ.R. 5 and 6).	City: Dismissal appropriate because Easley failed to perfect his administrative appeal by not filing a timely notice of appeal with the Housing Appeals Board; record shows no lack of service.	Affirmed — no record evidence of improper service; review limited to record; Easley failed to carry burden of showing error.

Independence v. Office of Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (2014) (standard of review for administrative appeals)
Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (scope of review and standards in administrative appeal proceedings)
State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (reviewing court limited to the trial-court record)