Lebanon v. Ballinger, 2015 Ohio 3522

The City of Lebanon sued James W. Ballinger in July 2011, alleging plastic fencing he installed on a property in the city's Architectural Review Overlay District violated the Historic Preservation Standards and was installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness.
A magistrate found Ballinger in violation after an August 2013 trial; the court adopted that decision in October 2013 ordering removal of the fencing by October 7, 2013. Ballinger did not appeal that order.
The city moved for contempt on November 19, 2013 after Ballinger failed to remove the fencing; at a January 7, 2014 hearing Ballinger admitted noncompliance but removed the fencing on January 8, 2014.
On January 30, 2014 the magistrate found Ballinger in contempt and imposed a $100 daily fine retroactive to October 7, 2013; the trial court adopted the contempt finding but reduced the fine to $1,500 on July 28, 2014.
Ballinger appealed pro se, raising due process, Open Meetings Act, equal protection/selective enforcement, recusal, and related complaints; the appellate court limited review to matters properly before it and to the contempt ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contempt finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence	City: court order existed, Ballinger knew of it, and he disobeyed it	Ballinger: trial court reached wrong conclusion; record incomplete due to Planning Commission actions	Affirmed: contempt supported; Ballinger admitted noncompliance and offered no inability-to-comply defense
Whether enforcement was selective/discriminatory	City: enforcement targeted fencing violation, not comparable paint issues	Ballinger: city treated him differently from neighbors who violated historic standards (paint)	Affirmed: claim not timely raised below and no prima facie evidence of selective prosecution or bad faith
Whether Open Meetings/Public Records/mandamus issues affect contempt	City: such claims are separate remedies and irrelevant to contempt	Ballinger: Planning Commission violated Sunshine Law; this deprived him of evidence/appeal	Overruled: those claims belong in a mandamus/proper proceeding and are barred or irrelevant to contempt
Whether trial judge/magistrate partial or recusal warranted	City: no basis shown for recusal	Ballinger: alleged impartiality and harassment since 2010	Denied: appellant failed to develop arguments or provide record support; no reversible error shown

Cleveland v. Trzebuckowski, 85 Ohio St.3d 524 (1999) (describes heavy burden to establish selective or discriminatory prosecution)