Maumee Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Buescher
2017 Ohio 9086
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Maumee Watershed Conservancy District (the District) sought to appropriate 19.004 acres from Rosaline Buescher (and family) and 16.115 acres from T & A Properties to construct a diversion channel and related flood-control/recreational improvements along the Blanchard River.
- The District obtained appraisals, sent notices of intent and written "good faith offers" to each landowner more than 30 days before filing, but negotiations failed and the District filed petitions for appropriation under R.C. Chapter 163.
- Appellants (Bueschers and T & A Properties) moved to dismiss / for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the District failed to comply with statutory/constitutional conditions precedent: no "before-and-after" appraisals, no engineering plans, and thus no offer of just compensation.
- The trial court denied Appellants’ motions, finding the petitions satisfied the requirements of R.C. 163.04 and 163.05 (description, appraisal provided, good faith offer, resolution of necessity, etc.).
- On appeal the Third District consolidated the cases and affirmed, holding the petitions met the statutory filing prerequisites and declining to consider the engineering-plans argument because it was not timely raised below (and finding any error harmless).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 163 requires a "before-and-after" appraisal and an offer of just compensation before filing an appropriation petition | District: compliance requires notice, an appraisal (provided), and a written good-faith offer; no pre-filing "before-and-after" appraisal is required | Appellants: a before-and-after valuation is necessary to determine damages to the residue and to constitute an offer of just compensation | The court held R.C. 163.04/163.05 do not require a pre-filing before-and-after appraisal; the petitions complied with statutory prerequisites and jurisdiction was proper |
| Whether the District satisfied the statutory notice and good-faith-offer requirements of R.C. 163.04 | District: it sent notice, provided appraisals and written good-faith offers >30 days before filing | Appellants: the offers were inadequate because they were based on incomplete appraisals | The court held the District met R.C. 163.04’s requirements (notice, appraisal copy, good-faith offer, inability to agree) |
| Whether the appropriation petitions met the contents required by R.C. 163.05 (descriptions, purpose, resolution, owners, statement of compliance) | District: petitions included legal descriptions, statement of public use/purpose, resolution, owner names/addresses, and a compliance averment | Appellants: petitions were deficient without fuller valuation/plan details | The court held the petitions satisfied R.C. 163.05’s content requirements |
| Whether the District’s failure to provide engineering plans before filing deprived the court of jurisdiction | District: plans were not required to be filed before petition; detailed plans were made available during litigation | Appellants: lack of engineering plans prior to filing violated R.C. 163.05 and the conditions precedent | The court declined to consider this argument as waived for being raised late in the trial court; alternatively found any omission harmless because plans were provided during litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilliard v. First Industrial, L.P., 158 Ohio App.3d 792 (Tenth Dist.) (damage to remainder measured by pre- and post-taking values; jury determination context)
- Wray v. Stvrtak, 121 Ohio App.3d 462 (Sixth Dist.) (expert must value property before and after taking when proving remainder damage)
- Walker v. City of Toledo, 84 N.E.3d 216 (Ohio Ct. App.) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(C) judgment on the pleadings)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1988) (pleading-stage inference rule; accept complaint allegations as true)
- Wadsworth v. Dambach, 99 Ohio App. 269 (Ohio App. 1954) (plain statutory language controls interpretation)
- Hallworth v. Republic Steel Corp., 153 Ohio St. 349 (Ohio 1950) (harmless-error and substantial-justice principles)