Inwood Village, Ltd. v. Cincinnati
2011 Ohio 6632
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- The city of Cincinnati sought private developers for the Inwood Village project in Mt. Auburn, with a March 2005 funding letter proposing a $1,500,000 forgivable loan contingent on 12 conditions.
- The city council adopted a funding plan in June 2005 reflecting detailed mutual obligations to advance the urban-renewal project.
- Developers secured substantial private financing and a construction loan to supplement their investment, but alleys of infrastructure work delay and rising costs occurred as the city allegedly stalled tasks.
- On May 20, 2010 the city manager refused to fund the project, with developers alleging that The Christ Hospital undermined imminent funding for its own expansion.
- The developers sued for more than $10,000,000 on theories of breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, and promissory estoppel; the trial court granted some contract claims but denied dismissing promissory-estoppel claims, and Civ.R. 54(B) certification was lacking on the partial dismissal.
- The appellate court ultimately held that the city was immune from promissory-estoppel claims under R.C. 2744 as it operated under a governmental function in urban renewal and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the city on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promissory-estoppel claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Inwood argues Hortman is distinguishable and promissory estoppel sounds in contract | City contends urban renewal is a governmental function and immunity applies | Yes; promissory-estoppel claims barred; city immune; remand for judgment for city on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194 (2006) (promissory estoppel in governmental-function cases barred for political subdivisions)
- Kenko v. Cincinnati, 183 Ohio App.3d 583 (2009) (whether a function is governmental; urban renewal not specific to governmental function unless defined by statute)
- Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 455 (2009) (urban renewal/governmental function governing liability)
- Torrance v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth., 2010-Ohio-1330 (2010) (urban renewal-related function recognized as governmental function for immunity analysis)
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (affirms broad purpose of Chapter 2744 to preserve fiscal integrity and imposition of immunity)