Engelhart v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
69 N.E.3d 137
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Joseph Engelhart, Gayle Lunken, and KB Partners appealed the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners’ Resolution 25, which abolished registered land in the county under R.C. 5310.32–.36.
- The board held hearings, performed a cost–benefit analysis, and found costs exceeded benefits, then adopted the abolition resolution after making specific findings.
- Landowners filed a “Notice of Appeal from Administrative Proceedings,” arguing the board failed to follow statutory procedures and that the decision lacked reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
- The board moved to dismiss, asserting the common pleas court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the board’s action was legislative, not reviewable under R.C. 2506.01.
- The trial court granted the board’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; the landowners appealed to the First District, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board’s abolition of registered land was subject to review under R.C. 2506.01 | Engelhart: Statutory hearing procedures (notice, evidence, stenographic record, findings) make the action quasi‑judicial and appealable | Board: Action was legislative (enacting a policy/law), so not reviewable under R.C. 2506.01 | Held: Legislative — no R.C. 2506.01 review; dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (jurisdiction denotes power to render enforceable judgment)
- Donnelly v. Fairview Park, 13 Ohio St.2d 1 (distinguishes legislative vs. administrative action; test whether enacting law or executing existing law)
- Berg v. Struthers, 176 Ohio St. 146 (actions of legislative bodies exercising legislative authority are not reviewable under administrative‑review statutes)
- M.J. Kelly Co. v. Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d 150 (quasi‑judicial proceedings produce administrative decisions appealable under R.C. 2506.01)
- State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325 (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- State ex rel. Fern v. Cincinnati, 161 Ohio App.3d 804 (hallmarks of quasi‑judicial: notice, hearing, opportunity to present evidence; focus on what agency should have done)
- Ohio Multi‑Use Trails Assn. v. Vinton Cty. Commrs., 182 Ohio App.3d 32 (vacation of roads is legislative; repeal or amendment implying no right to R.C. 2506.01 appeal)
- Moraine v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., 67 Ohio St.2d 139 (amendment/enactment of zoning/regulatory provisions is legislative)