2022 Ohio 4713
Ohio2022Background
- Ohio Power sought supplemental easements by eminent domain to replace a 23‑kV transmission system with a 138‑kV line in Washington County and filed verified appropriation petitions against several landowners.
- The landowners challenged the necessity and scope of multiple easement terms (e.g., transmission rights, pole replacement, corridor expansion, distribution lines).
- At a necessity hearing Ohio Power’s project witness (Rentschler) testified the project was necessary and identified the easement terms; she conceded the distribution‑line term was unnecessary and Ohio Power withdrew it.
- The trial court found the easements necessary and awarded Ohio Power all three R.C. 163.09(B)(1) presumptions (a) power‑board resolution, (b) evidence, and (c) siting‑board approval, and denied fee awards for abandonment.
- The Fourth District reversed: it held (a) and (c) presumptions inapplicable because the boards never approved the specific appropriations, ordered separate necessity findings for each easement term, and awarded fees to landowners for the withdrawn distribution‑line right.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held “appropriation” means the specific parcel/interest in the verified petition, concluded Ohio Power was only entitled to the R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(b) rebuttable presumption (it had presented evidence), remanded for separate trial‑court findings (no new hearing required), and reversed the fee award (landowners forfeited other fee arguments and there was no statutory abandonment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ohio Power) | Defendant's Argument (Landowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “appropriation” in R.C. 163.09(B)(1) | Means the project or taking generally (not individual easement terms) | Means the specific parcel or interest/right identified in the appropriation petition | "Appropriation" means the specific property/interest (the parcel or right in the petition) |
| Entitlement to R.C. 163.09(B)(1) presumptions (a),(b),(c) | Entitled to all presumptions because project and approvals support necessity | Presumptions apply only if the relevant board reviewed and approved the specific appropriation | Only (b) applies here: Ohio Power presented evidence so gets the rebuttable presumption under (b); (a) and (c) do not apply because boards did not approve specific appropriations |
| Sufficiency of trial court’s necessity finding (blanket deference to utility witness) | Trial court may defer to utility expertise and the witness’s testimony to find terms necessary | Court must review each challenged easement term separately (Norwood) and cannot rely on blanket deference | Trial court erred by issuing a blanket finding; remanded for specific findings for each easement term under the (b) presumption (no new hearing required) |
| Fees for withdrawal of distribution‑line term (abandonment) | Withdrawal of one term was not an abandonment of appropriation proceedings; no fees due | Withdrawal of distribution right is a lost stick; fees should be awarded under R.C. 163.21(A) or (B) | No abandonment under R.C. 163.21(A); award under R.C. 163.21(B)/163.09(G) not reached because landowners forfeited those arguments—appellate fee award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (trial court must independently evaluate necessity of takings and limit undue deference to condemnor)
- Hoyle v. DTJ Enterprises, Inc., 143 Ohio St.3d 197 (2015) (legal presumptions: effect of rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (appellate deference to trial‑court findings of fact supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State ex rel. New Wen, Inc. v. Marchbanks, 159 Ohio St.3d 15 (2020) (property conceptualized as a bundle of discrete rights)
- State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday, 164 Ohio St.3d 121 (2021) (apply plain‑meaning rule to statutory interpretation)