Orchard Lane Ents., L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp.
2017 Ohio 9398
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Orchard Lane Enterprises (plaintiff) owns 500 East South Street, a rental near the University of Akron; it alleges ODOT construction beginning May 2015 closed access to the property and caused tenant departures and a later sale at a loss.
- Plaintiff contends tenants vacated in June 2015 because the Brown/East South intersection was closed; property remained difficult to rent until April 2016; a second closure occurred in May 2016 and plaintiff sold the property in September 2016 at a loss.
- Plaintiff sought $9,800 in lost rent/utilities (vacancies June 2015–Apr 2016 and June–Sept 2016) and $14,700 for loss on sale (total $24,500).
- ODOT’s project permanently rerouted/reconfigured nearby Spicer Street, converting the block into a cul-de-sac and closed the Brown/East South intersection at times, but its Phase 5 construction documents stated “access shall be maintained at all times to residents.”
- Photographs showed road-closed signs, barricades, construction materials, parked vehicles on East South Street, and areas where vehicles could apparently pass the barricades; ODOT’s project manager testified residents retained access and no resident complaints specific to plaintiff’s block were recorded.
- The magistrate found plaintiff failed to prove a substantial, material, or unreasonable interference with ingress/egress and recommended judgment for defendant; magistrate credited ODOT testimony and found plaintiff’s testimony less persuasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether closure/interference constituted a compensable taking by substantially impairing access | ODOT’s closures and barricades prevented tenant access and caused vacancies and loss on sale | ODOT maintained resident access per project plans; signs were advisory and residents could access property | No taking; plaintiff failed to show substantial, material, or unreasonable interference |
| Whether decreased desirability/convenience alone entitles owner to compensation | Loss of rental income and diminution on sale flowed from ODOT closures and are compensable | Mere inconvenience or circuitous access does not constitute substantial interference | Mere reduction in desirability or convenience is insufficient for compensation |
| Credibility of evidence (photographs/testimony) | Photographs show road-closed signs and storage blocking access; owner testified tenants left due to closures | ODOT testimony (project documents, witness testimony) shows access maintained; photographs also show parked vehicles and possible access | Magistrate found ODOT’s testimony credible and owner’s testimony not persuasive; weighed against plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97 (Ohio 1955) (abutting owner has private easement of ingress/egress that may not be substantially impaired without compensation)
- Schiederer v. Preston, 170 Ohio St. 542 (Ohio 1960) (abutting owner’s access right is generally subordinate to public right to use or improve streets)
- Wray v. Fitch, 95 Ohio App.3d 249 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (substantial interference occurs when owner is prevented from enjoying continued prior use of the property)