Ohio Dept. of Transp. v. Storage World, Inc.
2012 Ohio 4437
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- ODOT filed three petitions to appropriate parcels in 2001; Storage World Inc. named defendant; DeMarco was president and sole shareholder.
- ODOT deposited estimated fair market value with the clerk; Storage World withdrew funds after answering and seeking jury trial on value.
- Condominium structure formed; discovery showed individual unit owners owned units and not all parcels via Storage World; all individual owners later added as defendants.
- ODOT amended petitions in 2007 to include individual owners and Condominium Association; DeMarco was not named as an individual defendant and served only as president.
- In 2010, ODOT moved to require repayment of $15,438; court ordered repayment to Clerk; Storage World and DeMarco appeal seeking relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over DeMarco | DeMarco was not named or served individually; no notice of personal liability. | DeMarco argues lack of personal jurisdiction deprives court of power to enter judgment. | Yes, lack of personal jurisdiction; judgment against DeMarco reversed. |
| Due process for repayment order against Storage World | ODOT sought repayment after settlement; court's order without hearing violated due process. | Storage World had notice via pending motion; no due process violation given lack of property interest and opportunity to respond. | Storage World rights upheld to some extent; reversal as to DeMarco; Storage World denied, due process issues resolved in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (1984) (personal-jurisdiction requires notice and ability to defend)
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990) (judgment against nonparties void; vacatur required)
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252 (1987) (due process balancing test for notice/hearing)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dep’t of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) (interlocutory orders subject to revision; Civ.R. 54(B) considerations)