Green v. Helms
2013 Ohio 2075
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Joel Helms and his wife Mary live in a single-family home on property zoned industrial in Green, Ohio.
- A 2007 settlement between City and Helmses included an arbitration provision for disputes about compliance with ordinances.
- In 2009, arbitration found items on the property violated health/safety standards and ordered removal; city later sought contempt for noncompliance.
- In 2011 the City filed a declaratory action alleging Helmses operated a home occupation outside the principal structure, violating local zoning.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Feb. 28, 2012, finding a prohibited home occupation.
- Helms appealed; the panel affirmed (with a dissent) the summary judgment and held arbitration was inapplicable to this dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment? | Helms contends facts create liability issues and arbitration should apply. | City asserts no genuine fact dispute and Helms’ use violates Loc.Ord. 1226.03(5)(D). | Summary judgment proper; Helms’ use violates the ordinance. |
| Authority of the law director to sue without legislative approval | Law director lacked authority per R.C. 733.53. | Charter and ordinances authorize the law director to pursue such actions. | Authority established; no merit to challenge. |
| Applicability of home-occupation provisions in industrial zoning | Loc.Ord. 1226.03(5)(D) does not apply to industrial districts. | Provisions apply in all districts; use is a home occupation subject to limits. | Loc.Ord. 1226.03(5)(D) applies; outdoor storage and other constraints violated. |
| Arbitration clause applicability under the 2007 settlement | Dispute should be arbitrated per the settlement. | Arbitration clause covers only violations of Loc.Ord. Chapter 632 and R.C. 731.51, not the current claim. | Arbitration not required; clause not triggered by alleged violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary-judgment criteria)
- Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 2011) (property rights and constitutional concerns)
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2006) (property rights protection; strict scrutiny of taking/land use)
- Saunders v. Clark Cty. Zoning Dept., 66 Ohio St.2d 259 (Ohio 1981) (zoning restrictions interpreted in light of property rights)
- BP Oil Co. v. Dayton Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 109 Ohio App.3d 423 (Ohio App.3d 1996) (zoning restrictions; standard of review)