Haueisen v. Worthington, 2019 Ohio 5085

The Tuckers bought 595 Fox Lane and obtained a building permit in July 2017; the Worthington BZA later determined the lot was an “existing lot of record” and subject to a six-foot side-yard setback.
Neighbors Steffanie and John Haueisen (owners of 587 Fox Lane) challenged that determination, arguing the lot was not an existing lot of record and thus an eight-foot setback applied; the Inspector found the lot was existing and that construction was in substantial compliance.
The Inspector revoked the permit after the Haueisens appealed to the BZA; the BZA denied the Haueisens’ appeal on December 7, 2017, the Inspector restored the permit, and the Tuckers withdrew their appeal of the revocation.
The Haueisens appealed the BZA decision to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. Chapter 2506; the Tuckers intervened as appellees.
The common pleas court dismissed the administrative appeal as moot because substantial construction had occurred and the Haueisens had not obtained a stay or injunction; the Haueisens appealed that dismissal to the Tenth District.
The Tenth District denied the Tuckers’ motion to dismiss the appellate appeal, struck the Haueisens’ supplemental reply brief, and affirmed the common pleas court’s dismissal, holding the public‑interest exception did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness from construction/no stay	Haueisens: appeal not moot despite construction	Tuckers: appeal moot because construction proceeded and Haueisens did not obtain stay/injunction	Affirmed mootness where construction occurred and no stay/injunction was sought
Public‑interest exception to mootness	Haueisens: zoning‑interpretation issue is of great public importance	Tuckers: exception inapplicable here	Exception rejected; issue not of great public or general interest
Whether BZA decision could be stayed/enjoined	Haueisens: BZA’s interpretive ruling was not executable and therefore not subject to stay	Tuckers: stay/injunction was the available remedy to prevent mootness	Court held appellants must seek stay/injunction; interpretive rulings can become moot if construction proceeds
Mootness caused by Tuckers’ withdrawal of appeal	Haueisens: mootness resulted from Tuckers’ procedural choice, so dismissal unfair	Tuckers: precedent supports dismissal despite withdrawal	Court declined to adopt the argument and followed controlling precedent rejecting that exception

Meccon, Inc. v. Univ. of Akron, 182 Ohio App.3d 85 (2009) (Ohio appellate decision applying mootness when construction proceeds without a stay).
Wedgewood, Ltd. Partnership I v. Liberty Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 187 Ohio App.3d 24 (2010) (applies de novo review to a trial court’s dismissal of an administrative appeal as moot).
United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (moot claims must be dismissed; defending party entitled to dismissal when case becomes moot).
State ex rel. White v. Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395 (2002) (describes rare public‑interest exception to mootness doctrine).
Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28 (1987) (recognizes public or general interest exception to mootness).
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Greer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511 (2007) (exception where challenged action is too short to obtain relief and likely to recur).
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (appellate courts dismiss appeals rendered moot by subsequent events).
State v. Cupp, 156 Ohio St.3d 207 (2018) (reiterates that courts do not decide moot cases).