2011 Ohio 3251
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1965, Amherst granted a perpetual easement to construct and operate a water main on Eschtruth’s land near West Ridge Road.
- In 2005–2006, Amherst rehabilitated the West Ridge Road Booster Pump Station and built two above-ground structures that extended five feet beyond the existing easement.
- After Eschtruth complained in 2006, Amherst attempted to negotiate a price for the additional easement but negotiations failed.
- Amherst passed a resolution in November 2006 to appropriate the additional easement; it offered $1,500 (the appraised value) to Eschtruth for the easement.
- Eschtruth sued for trespass, nuisance abatement, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief; Amherst filed an appropriation action; the cases were consolidated.
- The trial court granted Eschtruth summary judgment on trespass; it granted Amherst summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim; a jury awarded Eschtruth $1,500 for the easement, $10 for trespass, and nothing for residue or nuisance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appropriation necessary for public use? | Eschtruth contends there was no public necessity for the extra easement. | City’s resolution created prima facie necessity; Eschtruth must prove abuse of discretion. | Yes; appropriation found necessary; no proven abuse of discretion. |
| Can a city retroactively appropriate land after inadvertent seizure? | Inadvertent seizure precludes later appropriation under Chapter 163. | City followed 163.59 once it realized the overstep; inadvertent seizure does not bar later appropriation. | No; inadvertent trespass does not forever bar appropriation under Chapter 163. |
| Did the City violate § 1983 by abusing the legislative process to preclude court review? | City used a quick-take approach to defeat Eschtruth’s rights. | Proceedings allowed contest of necessity; no cognizable harm distinct from other claims. | Harmless error;Affirmed on § 1983 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wadsworth v. Yannerilla, 170 Ohio App.3d 264 (2006-Ohio-6477) (great deference to legislative appropriation decisions in eminent domain)
- Holding Corp. of Ohio, 29 Ohio App.2d 114 (1971) (public necessity not defeated by alternate locations; burden on compensation)
- Giesy v. Cincinnati, Wilmington & Zanesville R.R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308 (1854) (public necessity may be established without proving the exact original configuration)
- Cassady v. City of Columbus, 31 Ohio App.2d 100 (1972) (mandamus/damages as alternative remedies when taking is improper)
- Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of Columbus v. Holding Corp. of Ohio, 29 Ohio App.2d 123 (1971) (eminent domain necessity review and burden allocation)