Mitchell v. Mansfield
2021 Ohio 2421
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Mitchell owned a seven‑unit apartment building on Fourth Street that had been vacant since 2009; the city received nuisance complaints in 2016.
- With Mitchell's permission, the city inspected the building in January 2017 and declared it unsafe, abandoned, and a nuisance; a January 23, 2017 demolition order and a 10‑day appeal notice were sent.
- Mitchell attempted an appeal without paying the fee, later paid and received a hearing on February 28, 2017; she did not oppose demolition but sought more time to remove personal property and asserted constitutional/sovereign‑citizen objections.
- The city granted additional time (deadline June 10, 2017) and sent later notices advising imminent demolition; Mitchell admitted receipt but did not remove the property.
- The building was demolished in August 2019. Mitchell filed multiple suits and an amended complaint alleging due‑process and takings claims; the trial court granted the city summary judgment on September 29, 2020.
- Mitchell appealed; the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the city complied with applicable procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with R.C./municipal ordinances and due process (notice/hearing) | Mitchell: City failed to follow statutes/ordinances, denied due process (insufficient notice, no proper administrative appeal). | City: Provided required notice, afforded a hearing, and granted extra time to remove property; Mitchell received notices and did not properly pursue injunction. | Court: No genuine dispute; procedures met, Mitchell received notice and a hearing; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the property was properly identified as a nuisance / whether demolition was a taking | Mitchell: Demolition was arbitrary/unreasonable and amounted to a taking entitling her to compensation. | City: Building was unsafe/abandoned; demolition was lawful nuisance abatement under police power and not a taking. | Court: Nuisance abatement under police power is not a Takings Clause violation; no right to compensation. |
| Necessity of a second notice of demolition date | Mitchell: A second (pre‑deprivation) notice was required because of her pending challenge. | City: No statute/ordinance required a second notice; existing notices and extension were sufficient. | Court: No legal requirement for second notice shown; no genuine issue of fact. |
| Entitlement to judgment as a matter of law / exhaustion of remedies | Mitchell: Factual disputes (appeal, notice, hearing) precluded summary judgment. | City: Demonstrated lack of disputed material facts; Mitchell failed to present evidentiary material opposing summary judgment. | Court: Mitchell did not meet reciprocal burden to show genuine issues; summary judgment proper and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (1996) (summary judgment standards under Civ.R. 56).
- State ex rel. Parsons v. Fleming, 68 Ohio St.3d 509 (1994) (summary judgment review and standard).
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary judgment standard discussion).
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (appellate review posture for summary judgment).
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party's burden in summary judgment).
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (reciprocal burdens under Civ.R. 56).
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (police power nuisance abatement distinguished from a compensable taking).